[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 31, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S869-S910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
STATES--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, is
recognized.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I daresay that each of us has received an enormous
amount of correspondence and a plethora of phone calls about the
nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the
United States.
The favorable correspondence tends to emphasize support for the
Senator's policy priorities and appreciation of his reputation for
honesty and integrity.
The unfavorable correspondence tends to emphasize concern about the
Senator's policy priorities and disapproval of the standards that he
applied as a United States Senator and in previous offices that he
held, but particularly to the standards he applied with regard to the
disposition of Presidential nominations.
Mr. President, I speak today for myself as a Senator from the State
of West Virginia, as one who has sworn an oath 16 times to support and
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies
foreign and domestic.
I have heard arguments pro and con with respect to this nomination. I
am not here to argue the case at all. I am here merely to express my
support for the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of
the United States. I will not fall out with anyone else who differs
from my views. As I say, I am not here to debate my views. I know what
my views are. I am going to state them, and they will be on the record.
I do not fault anyone else on either side of the aisle or on either
side of the question. This is for each Senator to resolve in his or her
own heart and in accordance with his or her own conscience.
With respect to that provision in the U.S. Constitution, investing in
the U.S. Senate the prerogative, the right, and the duty of advising
and consenting to nominations, I find no mandate as to what a standard
may be. I am not told in that Constitution that I can or cannot apply a
standard that is ideological in nature. I have no particular guidance
set forth in that Constitution except exactly what it says. And I am
confident, without any semblance of doubt, that as far as ability is
concerned to conduct the office of Attorney General, there can be no
question about Senator John Ashcroft's ability to conduct that office.
He has held many offices. He has been a Governor of the State of
Missouri. He has been a United States Senator. He has been an attorney
general of the State of Missouri and, as I understand it, he has been
the chairman--I may not have the title exactly right--of the National
Association of Attorneys General of the United States. These are very
important offices. They are high offices. They are offices that reflect
honor upon the holder thereof.
To have been selected for these high offices, John Ashcroft must have
enjoyed the respect and the confidence of the people of Missouri and of
his colleagues, other Attorneys General throughout the United States.
I, myself, do consider ideology when I consider a nominee, for this
office, Attorney General, and in particular for the offices of Federal
district judgeships or appellate judgeships, and U.S. Supreme Court
Judgeships; yes, I do. I apply my own standards of ideology, and lay
them down beside the record, if there be such, of a nominee. And I may
reach a judgment based on ideology.
I have no problem with others who want to apply the criterion of
ideology. I have no problem with those who say it should not be
applied. This is for each Senator to determine.
It is our understanding, based on Senator Ashcroft's record,
certainly based on news reports, and other sources from which we might
reach a judgment, that Senator Ashcroft is a conservative. I personally
have no problem with that. I consider myself a conservative in many
ways; in some ways a liberal.
[[Page S870]]
This nomination has been heatedly debated. There have been great and
strong passions exhibited. That is all right. I do not have any problem
with that. I am glad that Members of the Senate take a matter such as
this so seriously. We can feel strongly about these things
I happen to be a Senator who believes that when it comes to judges,
they ought to be conservative. I think that if there is going to be a
department of our Government that wishes to be liberal, then that is up
to the people, if they wish to elect persons with liberal outlooks,
liberal philosophies, to the U.S. Senate or to the House of
Representatives--the legislative branch. It is up to the people.
The Chief Executive may be a liberal; he may be a conservative; or he
may be both liberal in one instance, conservative in another. Who knows
what liberal is and what conservative is? The beauty is in the eye of
the beholder-- in many instances, certainly. But in my own eye, looking
at Robert Byrd--and who can see Robert Byrd from within?
There is a poem--``Just stand aside and see yourself go by.'' I try
to look at myself every now and then, especially as I pass the mirror.
When you get all you want in your struggle for pelf
And the world makes you ``King'' for a day
Then go to a mirror and look at yourself
And see what that guy has to say.
For it isn't your father, or mother, or wife
Whose judgment upon you must pass
The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life
Is the [man looking] back from the glass.
But as I see myself, I consider myself to be a liberal on economic
matters, generally; and a conservative on social matters. Newspapers
indicate that the vehemence of the opposition to this nomination is, in
a measure, for the purpose of sending a ``shot across the bow'' of the
Executive, so that in the future when it comes to Supreme Court
nominations, the President will be very careful not to send up a
conservative.
I do not have a very big gun, but my little shot across the bow would
be: Mr. President, send us conservative judges. That is the one
department of the Government that I think should be conservative. It
should not make the laws. It should not consider itself a perpetual and
traveling constitutional convention. It should construe the
Constitution and the laws that the legislature makes.
The President was elected as a conservative. He did not get my vote,
but he was elected as a conservative. I think that when it comes to the
appointment of Federal judges, I hope he will nominate conservatives.
That is what he ought to do. He told the people he was conservative;
and they should expect that of him.
But entirely aside from that--and this Senator speaks only for
himself in this regard--I think appointments to the Federal bench
should be of a conservative bent. Judges have no business trying to
make the laws.
As far as I am concerned, any other Senator may apply his own
standards and say whatever he wants to. I only have to answer for one
person, and that is the old boy looking back from the glass when I
pause in front of the mirror.
I have heard no Senator indicate opposition to the nominee on the
basis of the nominee's religion. I have heard none. But there have been
a few little insinuations in some newspapers, in the columns, to the
extent that part of the opposition to this nominee may be on the basis
of his being a Christian, his adhering to the Christian religion.
Mr. President, I salute the nominee for being someone who has a
religion. I think more public officials should have a strong religious
bent, and should be willing to enunciate their faith, whether it be
Methodist, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, whatever. That is fine.
I am glad that there are people who bring to the realms of government
a religious faith. We need more of that. One does not need to be driven
into the closet because he has religious faith. One should not allow
himself to be driven in the closet. I do not attempt to foist my faith
on others, but I can listen to any of them when it comes to their
prayers. I can listen--listen--with respect, and I can hear what they
say.
I have a son-in-law who is from Iran. He grew up in a family of
devout Muslims. Five times a day did my son-in-law's father look toward
Mecca and pray. I could have no better son-in-law, none better. I am
proud of him. It does not matter to me what a man's religion is. It
matters more that he has a religion. It is like the rules of the
Senate. It does not matter so much what a rule of the Senate is. What
matters most is that there be a rule to go by.
In this regard, I remember the beginning days of the Continental
Congress in 1774. That First Continental Congress met on September 5,
1774. The next day, one of the members--it may have been Cushing or
Clark, Cushing of Massachusetts or Clark of New Jersey--stood to his
feet and moved that there be prayer at the beginning of each session.
John Jay, who was an orthodox Congregationalist, objected, as did, I
believe, John Rutledge of South Carolina, objected on the basis that
this might cause some dissension, some argumentation, so on.
Whereupon Samuel Adams--the real firebrand of the Revolution, along
with Patrick Henry--stood to his feet and said: I am no bigot. I can
hear a prayer by any of them.
He, too, was a Congregationalist. I could listen to any of them,
Adams said. ``I move that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian clergyman, desired
to rend prayers to the Congress tomorrow morning.''
I feel the same as did Samuel Adams. I can listen to any of them. We
all stand before one God, and he will be our judge. Whether I am a
Methodist or Baptist or Episcopalian or Catholic or Jew won't put me at
the head of the line. It is my belief in that Creator, the use of my
talents as he gave them to me, and my own conscience that will count.
I am for Mr. Ashcroft. I praise him, if he has a religion that he is
willing to stand up for. I am not suggesting that he is going to use
that in one way or the other as he has to deal with problems that will
come before him as Attorney General, but I would much rather believe a
man who puts his hand on that Bible and swears to support and defend
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and
domestic, I would feel safer believing that that individual will adhere
to his oath than I will have faith in an individual who has no
manifestation of religion whatsoever or who has no religion.
Here is a man who puts his hand on the Bible, the book our fathers
and mothers read, and swears an oath before Almighty God and man. When
he says that while he was a Senator he enacted laws but when he becomes
Attorney General he won't enact laws any longer, he will enforce the
laws, I should think that it would be cynical not to take that man at
his word. What else can we demand? A pound of flesh?
I take him at his word. He is a conservative. I am a conservative. He
may be to my right on some issues. That is neither here nor there. He
will have sworn that he will uphold, support, and defend the
Constitution, that he will enforce the law as he found it. I shall
believe him.
I wonder if Hugo Black would be confirmed by the Senate in today's
political environment. He was confirmed by the United States Senate
prior to the revelation that he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
He had already been confirmed before that revelation appeared in the
Hearst papers in 1937. That is the year in which I married my wife,
Erma, 1937. He had already been confirmed.
But there was an effort to have the Supreme Court reject him after
that information came to light, but the Supreme Court denied that
petition. I am sure that in light of his past, had it been known when
the Senate confirmed him, Hugo Black may never have had the opportunity
to be the great jurist that he became. So we cannot always look at a
person's past and make an accurate judgment. And who am I to look at
anybody's past? Look at my own. Someone has said that no man's past
will bear looking into. I think it is probably true.
We are talking here in regard to Mr. Ashcroft's past positions on
various issues. But when he took those positions, he took them not as
Attorney General of the United States, not as one who enforces the laws
of the United States.
As a legislator now for 54 years, going on 55, I have taken many
controversial positions on issues. I think I would be constitutionally
capable of
[[Page S871]]
putting aside my opinions, as I have expressed them in the past--and
many of mine have been very strongly expressed--I would be capable, I
would like to think, of putting those aside and enforcing the laws of
the land without fear or favor, hewing to the line, if called upon to
be the Attorney General of the United States. It was never a job I
would want. I think Mr. Ashcroft can do that.
The Constitution merely states that the President shall appoint
public ministers with the advice and consent of the Senate.
As I say, this is not a specific standard, nor even a mandate to
review particular features of the nominee's background or
capabilities. Rather, we are enjoined to employ our judgment, a faculty
which--however much we may lament it--focuses on different factors in
considering nominees for different public offices and varies its
approach in response to the needs of the times. Thus, when it comes to
our duty to provide advice and consent on Cabinet nominations, we are
plainly in an area where reasonable minds can differ, not only about
the criteria, but even about the proper result given particular
criteria. No amount of pressure politics--and no slickly packaged
talking points--can alter this fundamental fact.
I do not subscribe to the view that, barring the taint of criminality
or dishonesty, the President is entitled to have his nominations
confirmed. I do not subscribe to that view. That is not what the
Constitution says. I do subscribe to the view that law enforcement
officials of good will and ability can separate their policy
preferences from the performance of their official duties.
There is a distinct difference between the role of a Senator as the
drafter of laws and the role of the Attorney General as the enforcer of
laws. Once Senator Ashcroft places his left hand on the Bible and
swears to uphold the laws of the United States, he will be required to
enforce even those laws about which he harbors serious reservations.
Not only that, but given the fact that John Ashcroft is as I said, is
reputed to be a deeply religious man.
I know not whether he is or isn't. I have never been one who has been
close to Mr. Ashcroft. I never served on any committee with him. My
conversations with him have been very, very few.
He and I have not voted alike on many occasions. So I don't come here
today supporting Mr. Ashcroft because I know him well, or because we
have been bosom friends, or because we served on committees together,
or even because he is a U.S. Senator. But I believe that that solemn
vow will be taken seriously by him.
I am attempting to discharge my duty under the Constitution. That is
the way I see it.
Let me quote Senator Ashcroft's own words on that subject: ``As a man
of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously,'' he said. ``So,
when I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God.''
What more can I ask? Shall I go behind these words and dig up what he
might have written on this subject or that subject? Those who feel
differently may do so. But in this case, all things being considered, I
have reason to believe that when he says he is a man of strong
religious faith, he means what he says when he takes the oath. I
believe him.
During his confirmation hearings, he stated that he understands this
obligation and fully intends to honor it. For example, he indicated
that he ``will vigorously enforce and defend the constitutionality'' of
the law barring harassment of patients entering abortion clinics,
despite any misgivings he might have about that law.
I take him at his word. Although, I do not agree with all of Senator
Ashcroft's views, as I have already indicated, I have no cause to doubt
Senator Ashcroft's word or his sincerity regarding his fealty to an
oath he will swear before God and man.
As far as I am personally concerned, it would be an act of supreme
arrogance on my part to doubt his intention to honor such an oath. I
will not prejudge him in such a manner.
Given Senator Ashcroft's background, the position to which he has
been nominated, and his assurances to the Senate that he will
faithfully uphold the laws of the United States, I believe he should be
confirmed.
I yield the floor, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, thank you.
Mr. President, we have heard a lot said by my Republican friends and
others that Senator Ashcroft's nomination is opposed by ``hard left''
or ``extremist'' groups who are ``far out of the mainstream'' of
American politics. I see a pretty broad group here in these extreme or
out of the mainstream groups. I will read for the Record the names of
those who oppose this nomination.
Alliance for Justice, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers,
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American
Jewish Congress, Americans United for Separation of Church and State,
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Baptist Joint Committee,
California Teachers Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids,
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Friends of the Earth, General Board of
Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, Handgun Control,
Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, The Interfaith
Alliance, Japanese American Citizens League, Justice Policy Institute,
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Asian Pacific American
Legal Consortium, National Consumers League, National Council of Jewish
Women, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National
Education Association, National Rehabilitation Association, National
Voting Institute, Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc., Sierra Club,
United Auto Workers, US Action, Victims Rights Political Action
Committee, Violence Policy Center, Youth Law Center.
I ask unanimous consent that this more complete list of the
organizations and individuals opposing this nomination be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Groups Opposed to the Nomination of John Ashcroft
AIDS Action, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Justice, American
Association of University Women, and ACLU.
American Federation of Teachers, American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees, American Jewish
Congress, Americans for Democratic Action, and Americans
United for Separation of Church and State.
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Baptist Joint
Committee, Bar Association of San Francisco, California
Teachers Association, and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Coalition to Stop
Gun Violence, Common Cause, Common Sense for Drug Policy
Legislative Group, and Democracy 21.
Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, Feminist Majority,
Friends of the Earth, General Board of Global Ministries of
the United Methodist Church, and Handgun Control.
Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Human
Rights Campaign, The Interfaith Alliance, Japanese American
Citizens League, and The Justice Policy Institute.
Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Lawyers
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, and Missouri Legislative Black Caucus.
Mound City Bar Association, NARAL, NAACP, National Office,
NAACP, St. Louis Branch, and NAACP, Mississippi State
Conference.
National Abortion Federation, National Asian Pacific
American Legal Consortium, National Asian Pacific American
Bar Association, National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, and National Black Women's Health Project, Inc.
National Coalition Minority Businesses, National Consumers
League, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and National Education
Association.
National Family Planning and Reproductive Health
Association, National Voting Rights Institute, NOW Legal
Defense Fund, National Partnership for Women & Families, and
National Rehabilitation Association.
National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care
Providers, National Voting Institute, National Women's Law
Center, Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc., and People
for the American Way.
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Planned Parenthood,
Public Campaign, Rainbow Push Coalition, Religious Coalition
for Reproductive Choice, and St. Louis Black Leadership
Roundtable.
Schiller Institute, Sierra Club, Texas Legislative Black
Caucus, UAW, US Action, and Victims Rights Political Action
Committee.
Violence Policy Center, Voters for Choice, Wisconsin
Legislative Black & Hispanic Caucus, Women's International
League for
[[Page S872]]
Peace and Freedom, Women's National Democratic Club, and
Youth Law Center.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when the roll is called on the
nomination of John Ashcroft to Attorney General of the United States, I
will vote ``no.''
The position of Attorney General is not comparable to other Cabinet
positions. As head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General
has enormous independent responsibility and authority, neither of which
is subject directly to direction by the President.
The Attorney General also has enormous discretion in choosing where
to use the power to prosecute and when to go to court to assert the
rights of the People. Historically, the Attorney General is the officer
who has enforced the Voting Rights Act and the other civil rights laws
which have transformed our nation for the better in the last half
century.
Given the great power which has been lodged in this office, it is
important that the American people have confidence in the fairness and
impartiality of the occupant of that office. It is clear to me that
many in our country lack that confidence in John Ashcroft. His past
actions and statements raise legitimate concerns about how he would
carry out the duties of Attorney General. It is those legitimate
concerns that lead me to oppose his nomination.
What are those concerns?
Other Senators have cited actions and statements which they find
objectionable. I will mention three.
First, the decision to oppose Judge Ronnie White's nomination to the
U.S. District Court for Missouri. In my view, the decision to oppose
Judge Ronnie White was both unfortunate and unfair. Judge White's
record and views were distorted in the debate on the Senate floor.
Perhaps even more disturbing was the way in which Senator Ashcroft
determined to oppose Judge White's nomination. Each of us here in the
Senate knows that we have ample opportunity to voice objections about
judicial nominees from our own state long before a nomination ever
reaches the Senate floor. In the case of Judge White, Senator Ashcroft
chose to delay serious objection to Judge White until the question came
before the full Senate for debate. During that debate, Judge White, the
highest ranking African-American jurist in Missouri, was publicly
humiliated. This treatment was anything but fair. It was a sad day in
the United States Senate.
A second reason for my opposition to Senator Ashcroft's nomination is
his implacable opposition to the appointment of Bill Lann Lee to head
up the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in the previous
administration. Senator Ashcroft's opposition was clearly based on Mr.
Lee's support for upholding the nation's laws as they pertain to
affirmative action. Mr. Lee testified that he would enforce the Supreme
Court's rulings on affirmative action, including those that restricted
affirmative action. Senator Ashcroft opposed Mr. Lee's nomination,
presumably because he feared that Mr. Lee would actually uphold the law
of the land in that regard.
The third reason for my vote will be Senator Ashcroft's opposition to
James Hormel as President Clinton's choice to be Ambassador to
Luxembourg.
I have never met Mr. Hormel. I was not involved in the committee
deliberations on that nomination, but as far as I can determine, Mr.
Hormel was opposed because of his admission that he is gay. No other
credible explanation for opposing Mr. Hormel has been offered of which
I am aware.
It is my view that the person entrusted with responsibility to fairly
and evenhandedly administer the law should not be suspected of
discriminating against any nominee on that basis.
Other actions and statements could be cited, but I will stop with
those three. They are, in my view, legitimate concerns, and in my view
those concerns require a vote against Mr. Ashcroft to be our next
Attorney General. The position of Attorney General is far too important
to our Nation. Our Nation is one that needs to be united rather than
further divided at this point in our history. I do not believe he is
the right person for this job.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record a number of editorials regarding his nomination from the New
York Times, USA Today, the Akron Beacon Journal, St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Jan. 27, 2001]
What Ashcroft Did
(By Anthony Lewis)
Boston.--Even some conservatives are embarrassed now by the
way Senator John Ashcroft killed the nomination of Ronnie
White to be a federal judge. He told his Republican
colleagues that Judge White, of the Missouri Supreme Court,
had shown ``a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' It
was a baseless smear.
But it was not just dirty politics. It was dangerous, in a
way that casts doubt on Senator Ashcroft's fitness to be
attorney general.
Judge White was attacked by Senator Ashcroft because, in 59
capital cases before the Missouri court, he had voted 18
times to reverse the death sentence. In 10 of those 18 the
court was unanimously for reversal. Senator Ashcroft hit at
cases in which Judge White dissented.
For appraisal of Judge White's record in those cases I rely
on Stuart Taylor Jr. of The National Journal, a conservative
who is widely respected as a legal analyst. He wrote: ``The
two dissents most directly assailed by Ashcroft in fact exude
moderation and care in dealing with the tension between
crime-fighting and civil liberties.''
One of the dissents was in a horrifying murder case--the
murder, among others, of a sheriff. Mr. Taylor wrote that
Judge White's ``conclusion was plausible, debatable, highly
unpopular (especially among police) and (for that reason)
courageous. For John Ashcroft to call it `pro-criminal' was
obscene.''
In short, a judge who wrote a thoughtful, reasoned dissent
in a murder case was told that it disqualified him for a
federal judgeship. Think about what that means for our
constitutional system.
Judicial independence has been a fundamental feature of the
American system for 200 years and more. We rely on judges to
enforce the Constitution: to protect our liberties. But a
judge who does so in a controversial case is on notice from
John Ashcroft that he may be punished. The judge must reject
the constitutional claim, however meritorious, or face a
malicious smear.
There is a slimy feel to Senator Ashcroft's behavior with
Judge White. One of the Republicans who voted against the
judge at Senator Ashcroft's urging, Arlen Specter of
Pennsylvania, told Judge White the other day, ``the Senate
owes you an apology.'' Commentators have urged Senator
Ashcroft to apologize, but he has refused.
That same sense of slipperiness is evident in another
matter: Senator Ashcroft's role in blocking the nomination of
James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg in 1998. Mr.
Hormel is gay. Senator Ashcroft explaining his opposition,
said Mr. Hormel ``has been a leader in promoting a
lifestyle,'' and that was ``likely to be offensive'' in
Luxembourg.
But 10 days ago, when Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat of
Vermont, asked whether he had opposed Mr. Hormel because he
is gay, Senator Ashcroft replied, ``I did not.'' Why, then,
had he opposed the nomination? Senator Leahy asked.
``Well frankly,'' Senator Ashcroft replied, ``I had known
Mr. Hormel for a long time. He had recruited me, when I was a
student in college, to go to the University of Chicago Law
School [where Mr. Hormel was then an assistant dean]. . . . I
made a judgment that it would be ill advised to make him an
ambassador based on the totality of the record.''
After that testimony, Mr. Hormel wrote Senator Leahy that
he had not ``recruited'' Mr. Ashcroft or anyone to Chicago,
which needed no recruiting; that he could recall no personal
conversation with Mr. Ashcroft then and had not seen him for
nearly 34 years. He added that he had asked to talk with
Senator Ashcroft in 1998 about the Luxembourg nomination but
had gotten no response.
Trying now to appear as someone who will act equitably to
all, Senator Ashcroft was not man enough to admit that he had
opposed Mr. Hormel because of his sexual orientation. He
resorted instead to the false suggestion that he was well
acquainted with Mr. Hormel over decades and his ``record''
was bad.
Supporters of Senator Ashcroft say it is improper to object
to him because of his ideolgy--a president should be free to
have cabinet members of whatever ideology he chooses. Even
with the greatest latitude for
[[Page S873]]
the cabinet, Senator Ashcroft's extreme-right politics make
him a dubious choice for attorney general. But what makes
him, finally, unfit for the job is that, in Stuart Taylor's
words, ``A character assassin should not be attorney
general.''
____
[From the USA Today, Jan. 26, 2001]
Ashcroft Rights Record Bears Careful Watching
our view: his testimony said one thing; his record another
When Senate Democrats forced postponement of a vote
Wednesday on a confirmation of John Ashcroft, it was less a
victory than a delay of the inevitable. Ashcroft will be
attorney general. But whether Ashcroft will perform that
office's most vital role--protecting citizens against abuses
of power they can't combat themselves--remains very much in
doubt.
History has shown this to be the most lasting
accomplishment of many attorneys general. Herbert Brownell
Jr., who served Dwight D. Eisenhower, advised federal
intervention when the doors to a Little Rock school were
barred to the first black students. As John F. Kennedy's
attorney general, Robert Kennedy led the government's fight
against racial violence in the South. And most recently,
Janet Reno worked to assure women their constitutional right
to an abortion free from threat or violence.
There will be quick and ample opportunity for a confirmed
Ashcroft to show such leadership on everything from voting to
abortion rights. But the troubling questions remain: Will the
nation get the man of measured views portrayed at his recent
confirmation hearings? Or the ferocious ideologue who served
in the Senate and as Missouri's attorney general and
governor?
Ashcroft said all of the right things about being willing
to uphold the law. But grudgingly upholding it and actively
fighting for it are very different. Ashcroft's long public
record raises questions about his commitment, which were
enhanced at hearings last week when he distorted, evaded and
strained credulity in key areas, particularly civil rights:
Fighting integration. Ashcroft has shown no inclination to
fight for civil rights and indeed battled for years against a
voluntary St. Louis busing plan that grew out of a lengthy
court case. Assertions at last week's hearings that he favors
integration were undercut when he twisted his own record.
Ashcroft told senators that Missouri was not a party to the
desegregation lawsuit, that it was ``found guilty of no
wrong'' and that when ``the court made an order, I followed''
it. All distortions. The state was sued in 1977, Ashcroft's
first full year as attorney general. Judges repeatedly found
state officials liable, once calling them ``primary
constitutional wrongdoers.'' A federal judge threatened
contempt proceedings against the state for defying orders.
And in 1984, another judge wrote, ``if it were not for the
state of Missouri and its feckless appeals, perhaps none of
us would be here.''
Meanwhile, according to news accounts, Ashcroft rode the
case to higher office: He bragged about his unbridled
opposition and the threatened contempt citation. And he ran a
scathing TV ad suggesting that a GOP primary opponent was too
soft on busing.
Insensitivity on race. Ashcroft's Missouri history doesn't
mean he's an overt racist. Money was at issue as well as
integration in the St. Louis case. But he certainly seems
indifferent to minority concerns. Given ample opportunity to
explain his acceptance of an honorary degree from Bob Jones
University, a bastion of racial bias, and his praise for a
neo-Confederate magazine, Ashcroft offered limp evasions. He
``should do more due diligence'' on the magazine, he said,
and he'll continue to speak at places here he can ``unite
people.'' That doesn't sound like a man who would use the
power of his office to fight racial bias.
Ideology over justice. Ashcroft, who ferociously opposed
several Clinton nominees with whom he differed ideologically,
displayed no better sense of fairness even as he sought
Senate approval.
He repeated his harsh attack on an African-American
Missouri Supreme Court judge, whom he had labeled ``pro-
criminal.'' Ashcroft torpedoed the judge's 1999 nomination to
the federal bench even though the judge voted to uphold 70%
of the death sentences he reviewed. Also, Ashcroft evaded
specific questions about opposition to Clinton nominee James
Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. According to news
accounts, Ashcroft criticized Hormel, a gay businessman, for
supporting ``the gay lifestyle.''
Presidents get, and in most cases deserve, wide latitude to
pick a top team that reflects their philosophy, but that
comes with a price: They bear responsibility for their
appointees' actions. President Bush, who can't afford to
offend minority voters by abandoning civil rights, may hold
tight rein on the Justice Department. Moreover, much will
depend on those named to key jobs just below attorney
general, particularly the department's civil rights chief.
Those nominees deserve particular scrutiny.
Ashcroft himself faces several early tests of his
commitment to fairness. He'll decide whether the U.S.
government pursues allegations of voter discrimination in
Florida in the presidential election. He'll help determine
whether race has been used wrongly to draw new congressional
districts nationwide. He'll play a major role in picking new
federal judges and potentially Supreme Court justices. And
he'll influence the nation's stand on future restrictions on
abortion and on the use of race in government hiring and
college admissions.
If Ashcroft indulges ideology over fairness, Bush will
surely pay the price. But so, too, would Americans who most
need the law's protection. That would be the real tragedy.
____
[From the Akron Beacon Journal, Jan. 24, 2001]
The President's Man--The Ugly Story of the Ronnie White Nomination
Reveals What a Disappointing Choice George W. Bush Has Made
Trent Lott has declared that John Ashcroft will easily win
confirmation as attorney general. The Senate Judiciary
Committee was expected to vote today. That has been
postponed. Still, the forecast of the Senate majority leader
will likely prove true in a week or two. A majority of
senators will consent to the choice of George W. Bush.
A president deserves to surround himself with Cabinet
officers and advisers in whom he has confidence. That is part
of even the slenderest mandate a president may win. It
ensures that responsibility for an administration falls on
the person who occupies the Oval Office.
Those who've described the confirmation hearings on the
Ashcroft nomination as among the toughest ever forget the
raucous sessions over Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, to
name just two. The politics involved have been plain. The
president hoped to reassure arch conservatives with his
choice. Liberal interest groups have kept their own lists,
noting the performance of Democratic allies in the Senate.
All of the clatter might have been dismissed as business as
usual until Ronnie White, the first black man to sit on the
Missouri Supreme Court, testified at the confirmation
hearing. Bill Clinton appointed White to a position on the
federal district court. In 1999, Sen. Ashcroft, a fellow
Missourian, almost singlehandedly defeated the White
nomination, and the way he did so raises questions about his
judgment.
Ashcroft misled his colleagues. He rallied law enforcement
organizations to oppose the White nominations, all the while
leaving the impression they had come forward on their own. He
grossly distorted the White record, describing the judge as
``pro-criminal'' and ``with a tremendous bent toward criminal
activity.'' He painted the portrait of a judge determined to
reverse death sentences.
In truth, White voted to uphold the death penalty in 41 of
59 cases before the Missouri high court. He sided with the
majority in 53 of those cases. Ashcroft defended his
opposition last week, arguing that he considered the
``totality'' of the judge's record. If anything, that record,
as White quietly and powerfully made obvious, has reflected
sound reasoning and a dedication to the law (as many police
groups acknowledge).
Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, felt the
duty to apologize to White for the way he had been treated.
The judge framed the issue of Ashcroft's nomination: ``The
question for the Senate is whether these misrepresentations
are consistent with the fair play and justice that you all
would require of the U.S. attorney general.''
The White nomination doesn't tell the entire story of John
Ashcroft. As a former state attorney general, governor and
senator, he is highly qualified to lead the Department of
Justice. He has governed from the center and with integrity,
enforcing the law whether he has agreed with its direction or
not.
His zealotry has also been front and center. He has yet to
explain clearly his opposition to James Hormel to be
ambassador to Luxembourg, except to suggest that he was
offended because the nominee was gay. He persisted in playing
racial politics with a lengthy school desegregation case in
St. Louis.
The Ashcroft record raises the question: Why didn't George
W. Bush nominate someone else to be attorney general, someone
who better reflected the themes of his inaugural address,
conservative, yes, but far less polarizing and tempted by
expediency? Fair play? Justice? John Ashcroft is the
president's man.
____
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 25, 2001]
A Question of Fitness
attorney general
John D. Ashcroft has spent the better part of his political
career at odds with core values of the Constitution--
equality, religious freedom, judicial independence and
individual autonomy. Now he is nominated to be the people's
guardian of those values. The conflict between his record and
the duties of the office raises serious questions as to
whether John Ashcroft should be confirmed as attorney
general.
Disagreeing with Mr. Ashcroft is not reason enough to
oppose him. Presidents are entitled, generally, to their pick
of Cabinet members. if Mr. Ashcroft were the nominee for
secretary of agriculture there would be no problem. But the
attorney general vets federal judges, enforces civil rights
laws, safeguards the reproductive rights of women and
determines the legal position of the United States.
Can Mr. Ashcroft fairly vet federal judges when he believes
the judiciary is full of ``renegade judges'' who have created
a ``judicial tyranny'' where courts are ``nurseries for
[[Page S874]]
vice?'' Can he guard judicial independence when he has
repeatedly denied judgeships for political reasons? Can he
enforce the civil rights laws when he has doggedly fought
school desegregation, affirmative action and gay rights? Can
he protect women seeking abortions when he considers abortion
murder?
John Ashcroft is indisputably a man of principle. The
problem is those principles put him at odds with the
Constitution, with contemporary notions of equality and with
the mainstream of the American public.
judicial independence
Judicial independence is the rock that anchors our
judiciary. But Mr. Ashcroft has undermined independence with
his attacks on judicial nominees.
Mr. Ashcroft's hostility to judicial independence is an
important lesson of the much-told story about his opposition
to Ronnie White as a federal judge. Mr. Ashcroft may have
been motivated by a feud with Mr. White over abortion policy.
But by basing his attack on Judge White's death penalty
decisions, Mr. Ashcroft sent a chill through the ranks of
state judges hoping to be promoted to the federal bench. Mr.
Ashcroft said Mr. White was ``pro-criminal'' because he had
voted to overturn death sentences. In fact, Mr. White had
upheld 35 of the 55 death sentences.
Mr. Ashcroft focused on Judge White's lone dissent to the
conviction of James R. Johnson in the gruesome murder of a
sheriff, two sheriff's deputies and a sheriff's wife. Judge
White spoke of his ``horror at this carnage'' and said
Johnson ``deserved to die'' if he was not insane. But he
concluded that Johnson's lawyer was so incompetent that he
had not received effective counsel.
A lone dissent in the case that arouses such public passion
is the essence of judicial independence. Charles Blackmar, a
retired Supreme Court judge, called Mr. Ashcroft's attack
``tampering with the judiciary.''
Mr. White is not a perfect man, nor is he the nation's
keenest jurist. But he upheld the highest values of a judge
in his dissent. Will Mr. Ashcroft reject for the federal
bench those judges with the temerity to overturn a death
sentence?
Mr. Ashcroft's record in Missouri raises similar questions.
Judicial nominees say that Mr. Ashcroft asked them their
views about abortion before deciding whether to nominate
them.
civil rights
Mr. Bush says that Mr. Ashcroft ``has a strong civil rights
record.'' As evidence he cites Mr. Ashcroft's appointment of
eight African-Americans to Missouri judgeships, a past
commendation from the Mound City Bar Association, an
endorsement by the Limelight newspaper, his support of
Lincoln University and his signing of bills honoring Martin
Luther King and establishing Scott Joplin's home as a
historic site.
The appointment of eight black judges is a substantive
accomplishment. The rest is resume padding. Mr. Ashcroft was
only marginally involved in the Scott Joplin house. The
Limelight is a free, marginal publication, by no means the
largest or most influential African-American newspaper in St.
Louis. The Mound City Bar Association, a black lawyers'
group, does not support Mr. Ashcroft because of the
``insidious'' way he killed Mr. White's nomination.
The actual Ashcroft civil rights record is weak and
regressive. As state attorney general he denied that the St.
Louis schools were segregated. He lobbied members of the
Reagan Civil Rights Division to switch sides in the St. Louis
school desegregation case, and eventually became the
desegregation plan's chief opponent.
That plan offered responsible politicians the chance to
support phased, voluntary desegregation. But Mr. Ashcroft
insisted on calling it ``mandatory busing'' and leveled a
devastating anti-busing TV ad at his opponents in the 1984
governor's race. U.S. District Judge William L. Hungate
summed up Mr. Ashcroft's behavior as ``feckless,'' saying he
``voluntarily rode (the desegregation) bus to political
prominence.''
In 1997 Mr. Ashcroft led the opposition to Bill Lann Lee,
the Asian-American head of the Civil Rights Division. First,
he distorted Mr. Lee's position on affirmative action, saying
he favored quotas. Then, he said Mr. Lee should be rejected
for holding a position at odds with the Supreme Court's, when
in fact Mr. Lee favored affirmative action in limited cases
where the Supreme Court said it could be used.
In 1999 Mr. Ashcroft accepted an honorary degree from Bob
Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian college that
banned interracial dating until last March. Mr. Ashcroft's
claim that he did not know about the university's
discriminatory policies stretches credulity. The college's
tax exempt status was a huge controversy during the Reagan
administration.
Mr. Ashcroft's civil rights record raises serious doubts
about his commitment to ``equal protection'' under the law--a
seed of liberty scarified by the flames of the Civil War and
brought to fruition by the civil rights movement.
women and reproductive freedom
Mr. Bush says Mr. Ashcroft ``has a solid record'' on
women's issues, citing his appointment of Ann Covington to
the Missouri Supreme Court and his support for money to
combat violence against women.
But the Women's Political Caucus ranked Mr. Ashcroft last
in the nation for appointing women while he was governor of
Missouri. As Missouri's attorney general, he opposed the
Equal Rights Amendment. When the National Organization for
Women boycotted Missouri for opposing the amendment, he
stretched antitrust laws to sue the group.
In every office that he has held, Mr. Ashcroft has fought
abortion. He supported a Human Life Amendment even before Roe
v. Wade. In his view, Roe and its ``illegitimate progeny have
occasioned the slaughter of 35 million innocents.''
As Missouri's attorney general, he personally sought to
limit abortion in an argument to the Supreme Court. As
governor, he signed the law that led to the 1989 Supreme
Court decision that came within one vote of overturning Roe.
Mr. Ashcroft has said his top priority is the Human Life
Amendment; it would only allow an abortion to save the life
of the mother. There would be no exception for rape or
incest. Nor could states pass laws permitting abortion. Its
tenet that life begins at conception raises questions about
the legality of birth control pills, IUDs and the abortion
drug RU-486, which Mr. Bush may also seek to restrict.
Mr. Ashcroft has supported a partial birth abortion bill
that does not include an exception for the health of the
mother, even though the Supreme Court says that exception is
required.
Mr. Bush says he does not think the nation is ``ready'' to
overturn Roe and says he will focus on bills such as one
outlawing partial birth abortion. Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft
have also said they will uphold the law protecting women's
access to abortion clinics. But Mr. Ashcroft would have ample
room as attorney general to advocate positions that would
undermine Roe. And he could help pick Supreme Court justices
who would read it out of the Constitution.
religious freedom
Organized prayer in the public schools is unconstitutional.
The First Amendment says the government can't tell us when or
how to worship. Yet Mr. Ashcroft has long supported organized
school prayer. He also supports school vouchers, as does Mr.
Bush, that would direct large sums of public money to church
schools. As attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft would have the
lead role in developing the administration's legal arguments
in favor of vouchers. His opposition to four decades of
Supreme Court decisions raises questions as to whether he
believes in the boundary between church and state.
Perhaps, in several hours of testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee this week, Mr. Ashcroft can explain why
the nation should not feel uneasy with his stewardship of
values and principles at war with his own. Perhaps he can
reassure the American people that he will enforce principles
he has spent a quarter of a century--his entire career in
public life--fighting. But how could a man swear to uphold
constitutional values he rejects, without betraying his own
core beliefs? And who would place his trust in a man willing
to do so?
Mr. Ashcroft should certainly have a chance to explain how.
But if Mr. Bush wanted a uniter, not a divider, he has the
wrong man at Justice.
____
[From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 24, 2001]
Ashcroft: Still No--Senate Hearings Don't Alter the Case Against Him
The Senate Judiciary Committee could vote as early as today
on the nomination of former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft to be
U.S. attorney general. Before last week's hearings by the
committee, the Post-Gazette suggested that Mr. Ashcroft was
the wrong man for the job. Nothing that transpired in the
hearings changed our view.
It is true that Mr. Ashcroft, who was nominated by
President Bush as a gesture to religious conservatives,
assured senators he would enforce laws he didn't agree with.
He even made a specific commitment not to seek a reversal of
Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion, which he called
``settled law.''
Almost four years ago, in a lecture to the Heritage
Foundation, Mr. Ashcroft had a different description of the
high court's abortion rulings. Referring to a 1992 decision
reaffirming Roe vs. Wade, he complained that in that ruling
``the Supreme Court challenged God's ability to mark when
life begins and ends.'' In the same lecture, he echoed a
familiar conservative critique of what he called ``appalling
judicial activism.''
As we observed before, the question is not whether Mr.
Ashcroft can put aside his history of being an extreme critic
of the federal courts and of some of the statutes and court
decisions he will have to enforce. The question is why the
Senate should force him to perform the intellectual
contortions that transformation would require.
In raw political terms, it made sense for George W. Bush,
who received significant support from the religious right in
his election campaign, to make what one of his aides called a
``message appointment'' that would please that constituency.
Senators who see the world differently--like Pennsylvania's
Arlen Specter--are under not obligation to follow suit by
confirming Mr. Ashcroft.
Yet Mr. Specter went on record early saying he would
support Mr. Ashcroft ``unless something extraordinary''
developed in the confirmation hearings. Predictably, no such
``smoking gun'' materialized. Moreover, the witness Ashcroft
opponents had most counted on, Missouri Supreme Court Judge
Ronnie White, while eloquent, was in some ways a
disappointment. Judge White, an African American, declined an
opportunity to impute
[[Page S875]]
racism to then-Sen. Ashcroft's disgraceful derailment of his
nomination to the federal bench.
But the issue wasn't whether Mr. Ashcroft is a racist. It
was that he unfairly distorted Judge White's record by
branding him as ``pro-criminal.'' That charge is more
understandable in the context of Mr. Ashcroft's general
attitude toward judges he considers appalling activists and
subverters of the divine will.
There is no need to impugn Mr. Ashcroft's integrity or his
legal skills to oppose his nomination. Unlike other Cabinet
officers, the attorney general is beholden not just to the
president who appoints him but also to a body of law that, in
many respects, is uncongenial to John Ashcroft but vital to
women, minorities and other Americans who find his
demonization of the courts bizarre.
It was symbolism that led President Bush to nominate Mr.
Ashcroft; senators who are uncomfortable with that
symbolism--Arlen Specter among them, we hope--should reject
the nomination.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since we have a lull, I will take a few
moments to make some points I think need to be made in light of some of
the statements that have been made. We have been placing matters in the
Record all day, and hopefully people will read the Record and realize
some of the arguments that have been made are not only inconsequential
but really not right.
Let me rise today to address some of the most common criticisms
directed against Senator Ashcroft.
Certain allegations have surfaced again and again, and they
misrepresent Senator Ashcroft's record and personal character. I will
address some of the most invidious of these charges.
The primary criticism cited by my colleagues in opposition to Senator
Ashcroft are his involvement with school desegregation and his actions
taken against the nominations of Ronnie White and Bill Lann Lee.
First, let me address the criticisms made against Senator Ashcroft's
role in the school desegregation cases in St. Louis and Kansas City.
There has been a significant distortion of his role in these cases and
there are some things that I would like to make clear.
First, John Ashcroft supports integration. He is not against
desegregation and said so repeatedly during the four days of hearings
and in response to numerous written questions on the subject. Senator
Ashcroft testified, ``I have always opposed segregation. I have never
opposed integration. I believe that segregation is inconsistent with
the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection. I supported
integrating the schools.'' Senator Ashcroft is deeply committed to
civil rights and has stated that he intends to make this one of his top
priorities if confirmed as Attorney General.
Second, all of Senator Ashcroft's actions with regard to
desegregation occurred in his role as attorney general, as the legal
representative of the State of Missouri. As the State attorney general
he was required to defend the interest of the State, his client. The
State opposed voluntary desegregation because it would lead to
incredible costs for the State--estimates put the total cost of
desegregation at an incredible $1.8 billion to the State. To put this
in perspective, Missouri's fiscal year 2001 budget is $17 billion. At
that time it was much less. In other words, he wanted to prevent, as
did virtually everybody in government, a judicial raid on the state
treasury, something that all of us ought to be concerned about.
Indeed, the combined costs of the St. Louis and Kansas City
desegregation plans have been higher than the costs of desegregation in
all the other states combined, with the exception of California.
Moreover, the way the plan was structured most of the money was
funneled to the white suburbs. In 1996, when the total cost of the
program was $1.3 billion, only between $100 and $200 million went to
the St. Louis schools. That doesn't sound like desegregation to me. Yet
that is what these liberals have been arguing for.
The results of these court-ordered remedies have been truly
unimpressive. For instance, test scores actually went down from 1990 to
1995. Scores on the Stanford Achievement Test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at
a time when the national mean was 50. It doesn't sound like very good
desegregation to me. The graduation rate has remained around an abysmal
30 percent. And as far as actual desegregation, the percentage of
African-American students in the St. Louis schools has remained almost
identical to what it was when the plan started, about 80 percent.
Yet our liberal friends, both in this body and in the outside groups,
would have you believe Senator Ashcroft is doing a terrible thing
against desegregation and against integration. And they just plain
don't accept his very honest statements that he has always been for
desegregation and for integration. He has never spoken against them.
It has been suggested that then-Attorney General Ashcroft's lack of
enthusiasm for this plan demonstrates insensitivity toward the needs of
the students in St. Louis.
It has been suggested that then-Attorney General Ashcroft's lack of
enthusiasm for this plan demonstrates insensitivity toward the needs of
the students in St. Louis. But given these unimpressive results and
extraordinary costs, I think it seems perfectly understandable that
many State officials from both political parties have consistently had
doubts about this plan. Indeed, Senator Ashcroft's democratic successor
as attorney general took the same position on behalf of the State of
Missouri.
Third, some of my colleagues have charged that Senator Ashcroft
misrepresented his involvement with the desegregation cases. This is
also a significant distortion of Senator Ashcroft's responses to a
flurry of questions. The Missouri school desegregation cases are
extremely complex and involve a variety of different factual and
constitutional issues. Perhaps Senator Ashcroft made some preliminary
statements that were incomplete, but when questioned further, he
clarified his answers. Moreover, in an extended response to a written
question, he fully detailed Missouri's liability and involvement with
the case.
Senator Ashcroft has acknowledged that the State was found liable for
desegregation. However, the State was found liable only for an intra-
district violation, that is a violation in the one district of St.
Louis. The State was never at any time adjudged liable for an intra-
district violation involving the St. Louis suburbs--this is the bottom
line of a long and somewhat murky legal record.
The fact that Missouri was never found to have committed an
interdistrict violation is easily proved. Consider that throughout 1981
and 1982 the parties and the court were preparing for a trial on the
very question of interdistrict liability. It goes without saying that a
trial on the point would have been unnecessary if liability had already
been determined.
In fact there was never a trial on the interdistrict liability. This
trial was averted because the suburban schools and the St. Louis Board
of Education agreed to a consent decree. In fact, this settlement was
hastened when the district court announced that it would have to
consolidate city and county school districts if at trial liability is
proved of an interdistrict violation. The threat of consolidating
suburban and city school districts was enough to prompt the city and
county to reach a settlement agreement, an agreement to which the State
was not a party. The consent decree entered by the district court did
not contain the necessary finding of liability for an interdistrict
violation. Thus, a settlement was reached in which the State was
required to pay for an inter-district remedy between the city and
county although it had never been found liability of an inter-district
violation.
Missouri's arguments on appeal against the district court's order had
a strong legal basis. The Supreme Court had previously held in Milliken
that a district court must find an interdistrict violation before it
can order an interdistrict remedy. Indeed, such a remedy must also be
narrowly tailored to fit only the particular constitutional violation.
There was no finding of liability here, much less a determination by
the court that the settlement met constitutional requirements.
Moreover, the State did not willfully refuse to comply with the
district court's orders. What the district court ordered was for the
parties to the litigation to enter into a voluntary plan for
interdistrict transfers of students to suburban schools. But such a
plan was an impossibility because the suburban school districts were
necessary parties who were not before the court. No satisfactory plan
was likely to be
[[Page S876]]
produced under those circumstances. Indeed, no successful plan was
produced until the suburban schools were joined and threatened by the
district court directly with being placed by the court into the same
school district as the city schools.
The district court did criticize the State, but it did not hold the
State in contempt. Probably because the court realized that it had
essentially ordered the State and other defendants to perform an
impossibility.
Finally, Senator Ashcroft has been criticized for being overly
litigious in the desegregation cases. But an electronic search reveals
that Senator Ashcroft was actually the least litigious of the attorneys
general who represented the State during any significant portion of
this litigation. During the 8 years that John Ashcroft was attorney
general, there are 18 entries relating to this case.
By comparison, during the 8 years William Webster was attorney
general, there are 34 entries. And during the 7 years that Jay Nixon, a
democrat, was attorney general, there are 22 entries.
Then-Attorney General Ashcroft did bring several appeals to the
district court's action. But this is understandable given that the
courts never found the State liable for an inter-district violation. A
very key point, by the way. Senator Ashcroft's position on behalf of
the State was eventually vindicated in the Kansas City school
desegregation litigation. That line of cases culminated in Missouri
versus Jenkins--in which the Supreme Court held that an interdistrict
violation is required before a Federal court can impose interdistrict
remedies.
In sum, Senator Ashcroft was a faithful advocate for the State of
Missouri. He defended the interests of all state taxpayers through a
series of legally justified appeals. The legal theories he advanced on
behalf of the State were eventually vindicated by the Supreme Court. As
Missouri attorney general he supported improved educational
opportunities for children, not the failed and extremely expensive
court-ordered remedies developed by the district court. Senator
Ashcroft's actions contesting the details of a complicated court-
ordered busing scheme does not mean that he opposed segregation. Quite
to the contrary, Senator Ashcroft opposes segregation and supports
integration, and he represented his client the State in good faith.
Some remarks have been made about some of the judge's crusty remarks.
For those of us who have been in litigation before the Federal courts,
we are kind of used to those crusty remarks from time to time. Frankly,
because one single Federal judge of the approximately 800 district and
Federal judges in this country makes a crusty remark, that should not
be interpreted as condemnation of John Ashcroft or any other litigant
before the court, nor was there any indication of any kind of censure
by the court or contempt proceedings. As a matter of fact, it did not
happen. Yet there have been allusions here on the floor that there
should have been contempt proceedings. Come on, the law is pretty
clear. This has been distorted. It is really offensive to have it
distorted in a way that flies in the way of true civil rights, a man
who basically has stood up for civil rights throughout his lifetime.
Another topic that has been brought up again and again is Senator
Ashcroft's opposition to Judge Ronnie White. Mr. President, I am
concerned that some of my colleagues continue to denigrate Senator
Ashcroft for his involvement in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White.
It has been said that Senator Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record
and wrongly painted him as pro-criminal and antilaw enforcement.
But there were many reasons to vote against confirmation for Judge
White. In fact, every Republican did so. I have reviewed Judge White's
record and several of his dissenting opinions in death penalty cases,
and I can understand Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White's
nomination to the Federal bench.
For instance in the Johnson case, the defendant was convicted on four
counts of first-degree murder for killing three officers and the wife
of the sheriff. Johnson was sentenced to death on all counts. On
appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Judge White
dissented arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of
counsel. Judge White thought that Johnson deserved further opportunity
to present a defense based on post-traumatic stress disorder. But the
majority showed that there was no credible evidence that Johnson
suffered from this disorder. Rather, it was clear that defense counsel
had fabricated a story that was quickly disproved at trial. For
instance, defense counsel stated that Johnson had placed a perimeter of
cans and strings and had deflated the tires of his car. At trial,
testimony revealed that police officers had taken these actions, not
the defendant.
Further, Congressman Kenneth Hulshof, the prosecutor in the Johnson
case testified at Senator Ashcroft's hearings that it was almost
impossible to make out an argument for ineffective assistance of
counsel because the defendant ``hired counsel of his own choosing. He
picked from our area in mid-Missouri what . . . I referred to as a
dream team.''
Judge White has every right to pen a dissent in Johnson and other
cases involving the death penalty. Similarly, every Senator has the
duty to evaluate these opinions as part of Judge White's judicial
record. And that's just what Senator Ashcroft did. At no time did
Senator Ashcroft derogate Judge White's background.
I consider Judge White to be a decent man with an impressive personal
background. He has accomplished a great deal and came up from humble
beginnings. But his record of dissenting in death penalty cases was
sufficiently troubling to cause Senator Ashcroft and others to oppose
the nomination.
Some of our colleagues have impugned Senator Ashcroft's motives for
voting against Judge White. But Judge White's nomination was strongly
opposed by many of Senator Ashcroft's constituents and also by major
law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association
and the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs.
Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by Johnson
testified:
I opposed Judge White's nomination to the federal bench,
and I asked Senator Ashcroft to join me because of Judge
White's opinion on a death penalty case . . . In his opinion,
Judge White urged that Johnson be given a second chance at
freedom. I cannot understand his reasoning. I know that
the four people killed were not given a second chance.
Finally, some of my colleagues have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's
opposition to Judge White was underhanded and done with stealth. Well,
Senator Ashcroft voted against Judge White's nomination in committee.
He expressed his disapproval at that time. If he had held up the
nomination in committee without allowing it to proceed to the floor he
would have been criticized for delay.
Indeed, Senator Boxer pleaded during a debate about several judges
including Ronnie White:
I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all
things that are good in our country, give people a chance. If
you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with
something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We
can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It
is wrong. You would not do it to a friend.
Thus, Senator Ashcroft was between a rock and a hard place as how to
raise his legitimate concerns about Judge White.
Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity, one of the most
qualified nominees for Attorney General that we have ever seen. His
opposition to Judge White was principled and in keeping with the proper
exercise of the constitutional advice and consent duty of a Senator. I
regret that we have needed to revisit this issue at such great length.
Now, Mr. President, let me address one final issue that continues to
come up. Some critics of Senator Ashcroft have stated that he distorted
Bill Lann Lee's record when he was nominated to head the Civil Rights
Division. But this is simply not the case. Mr. Lee had a noted record
of promoting and preserving race-conscious policies of questionable
constitutionality. Opposition to Mr. Lee was not limited to Senator
Ashcroft--nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed this
nominee, including myself.
Let me say that I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee and
the difficult circumstances in which his family came to this country,
worked hard, and realized the American dream.
[[Page S877]]
Despite this high personal regard, I was deeply concerned about Mr.
Lee's nomination because much of his career was devoted to preserving
constitutionally suspect race-conscious public policies that ultimately
sort and divide citizens by race. At the time of his hearings, it was
clear that he would have us continue down the road of racial spoils, a
road on which Americans are seen principally through the looking glass
of race.
Senator Ashcroft's principled opposition to Mr. Lee was firmly based
in the record. The signs that Mr. Lee would pursue an activist agenda
were clear at his hearings. At that time he narrowly defined the rule
in Adarand and could not distinguish cases that he would bring as
Assistant Attorney General from those he brought in the NAACP Legal
Defense Fund.
Some have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Mr. Lee was
based on mischaracterizations. But Senator Ashcroft did not distort Mr.
Lee's testimony. When Mr. Lee stated the test of Adarand versus Pena he
said that the Supreme Court considered racial preference programs
permissible if ``conducted in a limited and measured manner.'' While
this might be correct in a narrow sense, it purposefully misses the
main point of the Court's fundamental holding that such race-conscious
programs are presumptively unconstitutional. Mr. Lee might have stated
that strict scrutiny was the standard articulated in Adarand; however,
when he described the content of this standard it was far looser than
what the Supreme Court delineated. A ``limited and measured manner'' is
a standard far more lenient than the strict scrutiny standard of
``narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.'' Mr.
Lee's misleading description can properly be assailed as a fundamental
mischaracterization of the spirit of the law.
Senator Ashcroft has stated that he opposed Mr. Lee because of his
record of advocacy and his distortion of precedent. These failures to
properly interpret the law would have serious effects on Mr. Lee's
ability to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Senator Ashcroft's reasons for opposing Mr. Lee were amply supported by
the record.
By contrast to Mr. Lee, Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly distinguished
his role as a legislator and advocate from that of the Attorney
General. He understands that his political advocacy gets checked at the
door of the Department of Justice. Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly
stated that he would enforce the law as it exists to protect the civil
liberties of all Americans. He is committed to defending the
constitutional rights of all individuals and has testified that he will
make the enforcement of civil rights one of his topmost priorities. As
Senator Ashcroft stated,
My highest priority is to ensure that the Department of
Justice lives up to its heritage of enforcing the rule of
law, and in particular, guaranteeing legal rights for the
advancement of all Americans. . . . [O]ne of my highest
priorities at the Department will be to target the
unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.
Senator Ashcroft's critics also allege that because Senator Ashcroft
opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights, Senator Ashcroft will himself be unable to
defend civil liberties. But this is an incredible and illogical leap.
To oppose the race-conscious policies favored by Mr. Lee is to value
the true principles of the civil rights movement--equality of
opportunity for all Americans.
At the hearings and in supplemental questions, my colleagues have
raised issues concerning Senator Ashcroft's plans for the Civil Rights
Division of the Department of Justice should he be confirmed as
Attorney General. Let me say that I am confident that Senator Ashcroft
will fight for the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. He
believes that everyone deserves an opportunity to succeed and that
those at the bottom of our society may need a helping hand.
Senator Ashcroft strongly supports ``affirmative access'' programs.
As he testified,
We can expand the invitation for people to participate
aggressively so that no one is denied the capacity to
participate simply because they didn't know about the
opportunities. We can work on education, which is the
best way for people to have access to achievement.
Senator Ashcroft wants to encourage achievement and access to
achievement. He wants to avoid what President Bush called the ``soft
bigotry of low expectations'' that fuels many race-conscious programs.
It is true that Senator Ashcroft is skeptical about government
programs that categorize people by race. Some of these programs might
be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand
versus Pena. That decision stated that all governmental racial
classifications should be subject to strict scrutiny, that is such
classifications must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling
governmental interest. The Supreme Court made clear that there was no
such things as a ``benign'' racial classification, and that the
government may treat people differently because of their race for only
the most compelling reason. This view of governmental racial
classifications comports with the development of constitutional
protections for civil liberties. Senator Ashcroft is solidly with the
Supreme Court on this issue.
We have no reason to doubt that Senator Ashcroft will work long and
hard to defend the civil liberties of all Americans.
These are the points that are repeatedly used to denigrate Senator
Ashcroft's character and motivation. But when the facts are examined,
these charges simply do not stick. Senator Ashcroft is a man of
tremendous integrity and probity and I hope that we move quickly to
confirm him.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware was going to
speak, but if I might, just before he does, and on this issue, the
desegregation efforts in Missouri in 1992, when Jay Nixon first ran for
attorney general in Missouri, he did recognize the need to settle the
St. Louis and Kansas City desegregation issues. He said the State, the
cities, and parents needed resolution and certainty after years of
nonstop litigation. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial summed up the
differences under Jay Nixon. It said:
Their differences in how the State should respond to the
Federal court orders of desegregation for St. Louis and
Kansas City schools is instructive. The Republican wants to
keep fighting although the State lost the case long ago. The
Democrat wants to have a settlement.
Mr. Nixon then followed through in this agreement. He was the first
Missouri official to sign a resolution on behalf of the State, and he
was a supporter of the law that provided the State funding to settle
the St. Louis case. In both the settlement agreement and the law to
implement it, then Governor, Governor Carnahan, provided the leadership
that Governor Ashcroft did not provide.
Senator Ashcroft ran for Governor in 1984 as a strong opponent of the
settlement, the settlement finally had in Missouri. He was 8 years as
attorney general and 8 years as Governor. In those years he denied
liability, opposed a fair settlement, and litigated the questions over
and over again.
I will put in the Record in a moment a letter from Arthur Benson who,
since 1979, has been lead counsel for the schoolchildren in the Kansas
City desegregation litigation.
What he said in it is:
While the case proved difficult to settle with the State,
it did eventually settle because Jay Nixon and other Missouri
officials wanted to settle rather than litigate, and because
he wanted to refocus the time and efforts of state officials
on improving education.
To this Senator's mind, this is a marked difference from what Senator
Ashcroft had done. In any event, Senators have to make up their own
minds.
I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
Arthur Benson & Associates,
Kansas City, MO, January 30, 2001.
Hon. Patrick Leahy,
U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Leahy: Since 1979 I have been the lead counsel
for the plaintiff schoolchildren in the Kansas City school
desegregation litigation, now styled as Jenkins et al., v.
Kansas City Missouri School District, case number Case No.
77-0420-CV-W-1, United States District Court for the Western
District of Missouri.
After January 1993 there was a marked change in the manner
in which the then defendants of the State of Missouri were
represented in this litigation. After January 1993 Attorney
General Jay Nixon continued
[[Page S878]]
to defend the legal positions of the State of Missouri
defendants vigorously and well. At the same time, however, he
never denied the State's responsibility for eliminating the
vestiges of its prior de jure segregation. He also expressed
interest in settlement, supported legislative initiatives in
the Missouri legislature that would provide necessary
underpinning for any settlement, and proposed alternatives to
the courts in response to remedial proposals of the
plaintiffs, all of which were changes from the litigation
tactics of the state defendants in this case before 1993.
While the case proved difficult to settle with the State,
it did eventually settle because Jay Nixon and other Missouri
officials wanted to settle rather than litigate, and because
he wanted to refocus the time and efforts of state officials
on improving education.
Yours very truly,
Arthur Benson.
Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, I had a phone
conversation with Senator Ashcroft--it was not an easy call for me, and
I suspect it was not an easy call for him--in which I shared with him
my decision not to vote for his confirmation to be Attorney General for
our country.
Unlike many of my colleagues in this body, I never served with
Senator Ashcroft. We heard a lot about him today from those who know
him better than I ever will. While some are full of praise and others
are more critical, a number of characteristics about the man emerge. I
want to reiterate some of those.
Even his critics will acknowledge that John Ashcroft is a person of
intellect, someone with great energy, someone with a wealth of
experience within his own State and here at the Federal level, a person
of deep faith, someone who was gracious in defeat in his reelection
campaign last November. If he were a nominee for Secretary of
Education, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Agriculture, or Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development, my vote would be different; I would
vote for him. But he is not. He is the nominee for Attorney General for
our country.
Senator Ashcroft and I have some common roots. I share his deep
faith. We are both Christians. I have been Governor of my State. He was
Governor of his State. He nominated many people to serve in that
capacity. I nominated many people to serve in that capacity as well,
judges and people to serve on my cabinet. Governors of Delaware do not
nominate the attorney general of our State. The person charged with law
enforcement and prosecuting criminals in our State is the attorney
general, who is independently elected.
Some have said to me that the President should have the right to his
choice of his attorney. We need to remember that the Attorney General
is not just the President's attorney. The President actually has his
own attorney, and all Presidents for a long time have had their own
attorneys. The Attorney General is the Attorney General for the
country.
There was a fellow named George Wallace who used to be Governor of
Alabama. Many of us remember him. When he would run for President, he
knew he was not going to win. John Ashcroft is going to win. He will be
confirmed today. He knows that, and I think we know that.
When George Wallace used to run for President, he would say to the
voters who were skeptical to spend their vote on a guy who was not
going to win: Send them a message.
I am struck by the people in my State, people of color, who have said
to me in the last month or two since John Ashcroft's name was floated
and ultimately submitted by President Bush, that even if Senator
Ashcroft is confirmed as Attorney General, we need to send him a
message, and the message is that people in my State, particularly
people of color, are uncomfortable with this nomination. They are
unconvinced that he will be forthright, that he will be consistent,
that he will be persistent, that he will be a champion when it comes to
ensuring that their civil rights are protected.
John Ashcroft comes from Missouri. It is a show-me State. There are
people in my State, especially people of color--and I know there are
others in Delaware and in other States--who are concerned about whether
or not Attorney General John Ashcroft would ensure reproductive rights
for women, civil rights for those who may have different sexual
preferences than others of us, people who may feel differently about
gun laws. Will this Attorney General enforce the laws of the land and
protect those interests as well?
I have heard from too many people in my State--from the minority
community--who have said we need to send a message to Washington, to
the new administration, that they do not want to be forgotten. They do
not want to be left behind. As much progress as we have made in
providing a better, equal footing, a level playing field for people of
color, we still have a long ways to go.
I regret I have to vote against our new President on this nomination.
I will vote yes on every other one. This is one on which I have to take
a different course.
I thank Senator Ashcroft for the conversation we just had a little
bit ago. I am hopeful he is prepared to send all of us a message,
regardless of where we are from, what our color is, what our sexual
preference is, how we feel about a woman's reproductive right, and that
is: As Attorney General he will enforce rigorously the laws of this
land for all of us. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of John
Ashcroft, a person with whom I have had the opportunity to serve in the
Senate for the 6 years he was here before ending that term after the
last election.
I think the President of the United States has selected an
outstanding nominee to head up the Justice Department. I look forward
to working with him.
Despite the campaign that has been launched against him, he will be
approved by a sizable margin so that he can do his work and do it
without any guilt whatsoever about any of the accusations that have
been made against him. I add my voice in support of his nomination.
Despite these well-publicized, well-financed attempts orchestrated by
outside groups to smear his good name, I am thankful Senator Ashcroft
will survive this reckless campaign that has snowballed into an
avalanche of innuendo, rumor, and spin.
From the moment President Bush announced his choice for U.S. Attorney
General, some predictable opponents immediately got to work. They
circled their wagons and launched an all-out war on our former
colleague and his nomination to be Attorney General.
In their zeal to pick a fight with the new administration, the debate
in the Senate has melted down into a feeding frenzy for the left wing
which sought in the process to lay down markers for their agenda.
Ironically, the President's nominee for the Nation's top law
enforcement office in the country is arguably one of the most qualified
candidates this body has ever had the privilege to cast its advice and
consent on for the office of U.S. Attorney General. He was twice
elected Governor of Missouri, served two terms there as the attorney
general, and was for 6 years our colleague--all of that public service
is remarkable for a person who will go on to be Attorney General.
He has the academic background and the legal background to also be a
good Attorney General.
From the 6 years I had the privilege of working with John Ashcroft in
the Senate, I can unequivocally say he is a man of his word. And what
is so important about being a man of his word is that the case made
against John Ashcroft is that in the Senate he pursued changes in law,
he pursued public policies that maybe some did not agree with. But that
is the job of a Senator: to vote for or against public policy you think
is good on the one hand, bad on the other hand; public policy you might
agree with on the one hand or might disagree with on the other hand.
They say he is not qualified to be Attorney General because of a lot
of things he did in the Senate, representing his constituents--
forthrightly arguing points he believed in, and voting on those points.
But has integrity and honesty. And being a man of his word is so
important because as Attorney General he will take an oath
[[Page S879]]
to uphold the law. He is going to enforce that law, even law with which
he does not agree.
He could even be in the position of enforcing some piece of
legislation against which he voted on the floor of the Senate because
he is a man of his word. And with all the criticism people have had of
John Ashcroft, where they disagreed with him as a Senator, and then
they criticize him as not being qualified or the right person to be
Attorney General, they forget that because he is a man of his word,
they have nothing to worry about.
In fact, he is such a man of his word that if he were to tell a fib,
you would know it right away. He is that straight laced, that
straightforward, that transparent of an individual, that he would tell
you the truth because he could not lie. He couldn't get away with
lying. And he knows he couldn't get away with lying. That is the sort
of a person to have as Attorney General of the United States.
We are going to have a person who is going to be the chief law
enforcement officer of the United States. You will never see him being
the chief defense counsel for the President of the United States as we
have seen over the last 4 or 5 years in the previous administration.
John Ashcroft, put in that position, would resign from being Attorney
General of the United States.
So the people who are making a case against his being Attorney
General, because of votes and speeches and positions he has taken on
the floor of the Senate, are comparing apples and oranges; and they are
forgetting that a man of his word is going to do what he says, and he
takes an oath to uphold the law and enforce that law; and it is going
to get done. So I say, once again, he is unequivocally a man of his
word.
He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will
enforce the laws of this land, and he is going to do that for all
Americans. He said that, and he is going to do it. And his saying that
makes me fully confident that he will do so.
He has a sharp command of the law, having filled both shoes of
Senator, Governor and state Attorney General. He understands the
difference between advancing legislation as a Senator and enforcing the
laws on the books as a state Attorney General. And along this line, he
has been recognized by the leaders of other States in this area,
because he was elected by the National Association of Attorneys
General, and elected in another position by the National Governors'
Association, to represent and lead their organizations while he was in
those two positions for the State of Missouri.
As fellow midwesterners, John and I come from States where
agricultural issues are key components of our economy, our culture, and
our heritage. We have discussed at length how to address the challenges
confronting family farmers in this new century. He shares my concern
that we must foster competitive markets and that the family farmer is
entitled to a level playing field--the same for independent producers--
and he would say, beyond agriculture, fair competition is important for
the small business people of America.
He would also say that for passengers in my State who pay
extraordinarily high airline tickets to fly from Des Moines, IA, to
Chicago, there has to be competition in the airline industry,
particularly for rural America.
Based on my experience with Senator Ashcroft's work here in the
Senate, I know he is committed to doing what is right for middle
America as he enforces these laws that are already on the books. He
knows, of course, that I will keep my lines of communication wide open
between my office and his when it comes to fighting for the interests
of rural America.
In addition to his exemplary professional credentials, there is
another issue upon which his supporters and detractors alike agree, and
that is, our former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, is a man of
principle. He is a man of his word. Just ask the people of Missouri
who, not once but time and time again, placed their trust in him for
high statewide elected office.
Senator Ashcroft's career has been stellar. During his career,
Senator Ashcroft has worked to establish a number of things to keep all
Americans safe and free from criminal activity.
For example, last year Senator Ashcroft introduced a bill to prohibit
juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition
clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed this Ashcroft legislation. He
also voted for the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act that prohibits the
possession of a firearm within a school zone. Because the Clinton
Justice Department had not made gun prosecutions a priority, Senator
Ashcroft led the charge in directing the Justice Department to increase
the prosecution of crimes committed with guns. In fact, he sponsored
legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional Federal
prosecutors and law enforcement officers to increase Federal
prosecution of criminals who use guns.
John Ashcroft's efforts against drug abuse and trafficking are
equally as impressive. A leader in the national fight against the
scourge of methamphetamine, John Ashcroft won enactment of the
Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, among other antidrug
laws he got passed.
Senator Ashcroft has fought hard for the rights of women and to
protect them from domestic abuse. He signed into law a bill, when he
was Governor, that allowed women accused of homicide to present
battered spouse syndrome evidence in the court in that State. He
cosponsored, at the Federal level, the Violence Against Women Act that
helped secure $100 million in increased funding to combat violence
against women.
He voted for legislation that prohibits any person convicted of even
misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.
As Governor, Senator Ashcroft appointed women to the State's
appellate courts, including the first two women to the Missouri Court
of Appeals and the first woman to the Missouri Supreme Court.
In regard to the tactics used against him, deploying distortion and
demagoguery to advance their own agenda, groups inside the beltway, who
probably have felt very secure for the last years because they had
somebody in the White House who would advance their agenda, now feel a
little shut out. They have banded together to engineer a controversy
about John Ashcroft where none exists. They rushed to cast judgment,
and in the process his opponents sought to paint John Ashcroft as a
racist, as somebody tainted by his principles and unfit to lead the
Department of Justice.
Obviously, in my view, these critics have been unable to make their
case, and I think when this vote is taken, we will find out that they
did not make their case.
Despite his critics' best efforts, accusations of racism and bias
have not stuck. In fact, throughout his career, Senator Ashcroft has
tried to protect the rights of minorities. He signed the Missouri hate
crimes bill into law, and in the Senate he held the first-ever hearing
on racial profiling. As Governor, he appointed a number of minority
judicial candidates. His by-the-book approach to governing rises above
and way beyond the decibel level of his detractors, the 200-some
organizations that have banded together to make this clean-cut, honest
American, great public servant, out to be some very bad person.
It is sad that the aggressive publicity generated by the special
interest groups to derail this nomination has painted an unfair image
of John Ashcroft in the minds of too many Americans. For example,
contrary to the controversy surrounding the nomination to the Federal
bench of Ronnie White, John Ashcroft does not have a racist bone in his
body. If his opponents are keeping track of his support for black
judges, it is ironic that they didn't care to publicize the fact that
he, as Senator, voted for 26 out of 28 judges of African American
descent. He nominated the first black judge to the appellate court as
Governor of Missouri, and the St. Louis Black Bar Association praised
him for diversity in his court appointments. The trumped-up charges of
racism and bias took on a life of their own, but in fact they ring very
hollow when we pull back the curtain of his opponents' red hot
rhetoric.
In recent years, misrepresentations and baldfaced lies coming out of
Washington have eroded the electorate's faith and trust in public
officials, including all of us. Thankfully, that is not the way the
majority of the American people operate. To the majority of
[[Page S880]]
the American people, the end does not always justify the means. In
fact, seldom is that true. But in the case of this opposition to John
Ashcroft, any means is justified for the end they want--to let their
grassroots members back home know that even though they don't have the
President of the United States always carrying their agenda, as they
did the last 8 years, they are going to be a force in this town. And
they are a force in this town.
They are also telling Members of Congress, particularly left-of-
center Members of Congress: You are on a short leash. We have to be
reckoned with. Don't toy around with playing with the Republicans too
much or a Republican President. It is also going to help them
tremendously with their fund-raising. That is what is at stake here.
The majority of Americans do not operate that way. Not even a
majority of their own rank-and-file members at the grassroots operate
that way. I was a member of a labor union from 1961 to 1971. If there
is one thing I learned as a member of the labor union--and I was
voluntarily a member of the labor union because in my State, we have
the right-to-work law, you don't have to join--I found out that the
political agenda of the labor union leadership of Detroit or
Washington, DC, did not represent the political philosophy of my
members on the assembly line at the Waterloo Register Company in Cedar
Falls, IA. They may have represented our economic interests of
collective bargaining, but they did not represent the political
interests of the commonsense, conservative blue-collar workers. It is
the very same way with a lot of these organizations. When we go back to
the grassroots of our States and interact with the rank-and-file
members of a lot of these organizations, they do not treat us in our
State the way these leaders might treat us out here, as evidenced by
the fact of how they treat John Ashcroft. Misrepresentations and
baldfaced lies that are used by this group are not the way my friend
and neighbor, John Ashcroft, has built up an impeccable record of
honest public service. His rock-solid integrity, legal background, and
proven ability to uphold and enforce the law will restore the mission
of the Justice Department.
It is clear to me that despite his personal beliefs, Senator Ashcroft
has proven his ability to uphold the law without the influence of
personal bias. For example, as Missouri attorney general, John Ashcroft
protected the confidentiality of abortion records maintained by the
Missouri Department of Health, even when they were requested by pro-
life groups. He has voiced his opposition to violence and his belief
that, regardless of his personal views on abortion, people should be
able to enter abortion clinics safely. That is the law of the land.
Senator Ashcroft's views on abortion are known. But as Attorney
General, those laws would not be something that he could change, as one
could as a legislator. As a Senator, as a policymaker, he could change
some things he might not agree with and I may not agree with. It is
still the law of the land, and we live by it.
Senator Ashcroft believes that people who commit acts of violence and
intimidation should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. He
knows that if you are going to have a civil society, you cannot
tolerate violence on the part of pro-life people any more than you can
tolerate violence on the part of union leaders on the picket line.
I conclude by saying that everyone in this institution comes to the
Senate with a set of ideals and principles that serve as their guiding
compass. Whether it is based upon conservatism, liberalism, or
something else, or something in between, each of us in this Chamber has
the privilege and responsibility to cast votes of conscience. When the
Presiding Officer calls the yeas and nays on this nomination, I hope
that the avalanche of unproven criticism will be put to rest as a
result of that vote.
I want us to confirm John Ashcroft as our next Attorney General. I
have listened to the opponents of John Ashcroft speak here. I have not
heard every one of the speeches, but I had an opportunity to be on a
television program with a colleague of mine from the other side of the
aisle who is going to vote against this nomination, the Senator from
Indiana, Mr. Bayh, a person of outstanding ethics, honesty, and moral
values. His dad served in this Senate, was an outstanding leader and a
person of moral and high ethical values as well.
I would vote for Senator Bayh to be Attorney General of the United
States, if a Democrat President nominated him, because he is just the
sort of person who, when you look at him, you just know this guy is not
going to do something that is wrong. You know he is going to enforce
the law.
I hope all of the people who are upright and of strong conviction on
the other side, people who have high moral and ethical values--and I
know my colleagues on the other side to be in that category--I hope
they vote for John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. I could cast a vote
for them as well for Attorney General, not because they are my
colleagues, but because of what I have seen in their lives. I hope they
truly have seen what is in John Ashcroft's life. And I hope those that
are against him will have a little guilty feeling about voting against
him, unless I see them differently from the way they are and I have
been mistaken about John Ashcroft. But I haven't been mistaken about
John Ashcroft, and I haven't been mistaken about my colleagues from the
other side as well. I just hope there is a lot of soul searching in the
next few hours before we vote because I think this Senator is entitled
to an overwhelming vote of support to become the next Attorney General
of the United States.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I regretfully rise today to oppose the
nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States.
As a new Member of the U.S. Senate, I did not have the opportunity to
serve with former Senator Ashcroft. I have only his record and his
testimony on which to make this decision. I come to this judgment after
supporting almost all of President Bush's other Cabinet nominees. I
believe that the President should be given broad latitude in choosing
his Cabinet, but the Constitution clearly gives the Senate the
responsibility of advice and consent. It is our responsibility to
review the actions and backgrounds of the nominees and speak on behalf
of the people we represent.
I have listened intently to the judiciary hearings--the questions and
the answers--and I would like to commend my colleagues on the Judiciary
Committee for the thoughtful and thorough process that was used on this
critically important nomination. There is no question that former
Senator Ashcroft has a long career of public service. It is that career
and the record that he has created that I feel compelled to evaluate as
the most important consideration in making my decision. I have always
believed that actions speak louder than words, especially when there is
a long and consistent public history of questionable actions.
This is especially important given the critical responsibilities and
broad discretion given to the office of Attorney General. Let me list
just a few of the actions that I find most disturbing. I was extremely
troubled to learn of Senator Ashcroft's record as Missouri's attorney
general when he strongly opposed a voluntary and court-ordered plan to
desegregate many of the public schools in St. Louis. As the Governor of
the State of Missouri, this nominee vetoed the Voter Registration
Reform Act, which would have clearly increased the participation of
minorities in the electoral process.
His record on other antidiscrimination issues is equally disturbing.
From his opposition to the ultimately successful appointment of James
Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg, simply because he was gay,
regardless of his qualifications, to his refusal to answer questions
during his confirmation hearing about whether he would discriminate
against Americans by denying them the ability to gain security
clearances simply because of their sexual orientation. His record on
women's rights is just as troubling. He has consistently used every
opportunity and every power he has had to block reproductive choice for
women including the extreme position of suing public health
[[Page S881]]
care nurses in the State of Missouri for providing basic gynecological
and contraceptive services. In addition, his very vocal opposition to
Roe vs. Wade and the basic reproductive rights of women is an issue
that not only continues to worry me, but millions of women across this
country.
For me personally, one of the most troubling aspects of his record,
was Senator Ashcroft's unfair treatment of Judge Ronald White when he
spearheaded the U.S. Senate's rejection of his nomination to the
Federal bench. This action was highly unusual and extremely unfortunate
for Judge White and for the U.S. Senate.
One of the most basic requirements of any nominee to be the U.S.
Attorney General is an ability to exhibit a strong track record of
fighting for the constitutional rights of all Americans--black, brown,
or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor. In my opinion,
Senator Ashcroft's record clearly fails to satisfy that most basic
qualification. To the contrary, he has established a 25-year track
record of opposing equal opportunities and fair play for too many
Americans.
The basic fact remains that the U.S. Attorney General is the people's
lawyer, not the President's lawyer. He is the guardian of the
constitutional rights of every American citizen. And I cannot in good
conscience support a nominee who has spent much of the past 25 years
opposing the constitutional rights of far too many of our citizens.
Thank you. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could engage my friend from Utah, the
manager of this nomination, I know our friend from Kansas is here, and
the Senator from Iowa spoke for quite a long period of time. The
Senator from Michigan spoke for just a few minutes. I think it would be
appropriate to have the Senator from California speak. She will
probably speak for about 35 or 40 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I believe Senator Brownback was next.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could, I have about 10 minutes to
speak. If I could, I would like to go in a back-and-forth order.
Mr. REID. We just didn't want another 2- or 3-minute speech that took
40 minutes.
Mr. HATCH. I rightfully understand that. If the Senator will speak
for 10 minutes or less, we would appreciate it.
Mrs. BOXER. If we could have a unanimous consent agreement that
following Senator Brownback, Senator Reid would be recognized, and then
Senator Boxer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, very much. I appreciate the opportunity to
be here to speak in favor of our colleague, Senator Ashcroft, to be
Attorney General of the United States.
I serve on our Judiciary Committee along with the esteemed Presiding
Officer.
I wonder sometimes who people are talking about when I hear people
saying he is too far this way or that way to be Attorney General. I
wonder. How did he win statewide elections in a swing State such as
Missouri for so many different elections. How was he elected president
of the National Association of Attorney Generals? How was he elected
head of the National Governors' Association--bipartisan groups? If this
guy is so far out there on these issues, how on Earth did he get
elected to all of these positions? It just baffles me other than to say
he is not extreme.
In most of his policy issues he has put forward, he cares strongly
with passion. But there is a solid core of Americans, and in most cases
a majority of Americans, who strongly believe in and agree with him on
issues such as partial-birth abortion and other items. But that really
is neither here nor there. The issue is whether he will enforce the
law. That is what an Attorney General is required to do and is called
upon to do and in States are elected to do. He has done that at the
State level as an elected attorney general. He will do that as a
national Attorney General, especially for the United States.
I am new to the Judiciary Committee with this session. I am looking
forward to serving on that body. But what I found by this process that
we have had in the treatment of John Ashcroft is that it is an
extraordinarily unfair process, and I think quite undeservedly toward
John.
Mr. President, I grew up in a town only about 20 miles from the State
of Missouri in a small town called Parker, KS. I have had the
opportunity to follow John's career for a long time. Our States share a
common border. In the Senate, John and I served together on the
Commerce and Foreign Relations Committee. Our offices were even down
the hall from each other. John and I were neighbors here in Washington,
and he even put me up in his house when my apartment building burned. I
submit that he would do that for anyone who needed a roof over their
head. But more important than geography or committee assignments, John
Ashcroft is my friend. A friend who shared with me his honesty and
integrity, his devotion to his creator, his principled character, and
his steadfast belief that each of us is put here on Earth, to help our
fellow man, and to leave the world a better place for all of our
children.
Contrary to the assertions of those who make a living exacerbating
the tensions that divide us as a nation, I know John Ashcroft is
committed to our Nation's promise of equal justice for all.
President Bush made an outstanding choice for his Attorney General.
John Ashcroft is one of the most qualified nominees for the office of
Attorney General in history.
But even more impressive than his resume, Mr. President, are John
Ashcroft's words and deeds. Article II, section 3 of the Constitution
provides that the President of the United States, ``shall take care
that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The Department of Justice is
the primary government agency charged with the President's
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United
States. John Ashcroft has fulfilled this function as two-time attorney
general of the State of Missouri. In that role, John Ashcroft upheld
law with which he personally disagreed, and which many of us in this
body might disagree with. But as Missouri attorney general, he swore an
oath to uphold the law, and he did. Mr. President, there are many
issues on which many of us in this body disagree. But we are
legislators, we write laws. That is not the role of the Attorney
General of the United States. Mr. President, John Ashcroft raised his
right hand swore before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would
faithfully enforce the laws of the United States, ``So help me God.''
As a person who feels fortunate to call John Ashcroft a friend, I don't
think there is a stronger guarantee than that oath he took.
Some have called Senator Ashcroft's record on civil rights into
question. This has been a program of distortion. As Missouri Governor,
John Ashcroft signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute into law. As
a U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft supported every African-American judicial
nominee confirmed by the Senate. As chairman of the Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, John Ashcroft convened a
hearing on racial profiling with Senator Feingold, stating on the
record that racial profiling is unconstitutional. John Ashcroft's
record speaks for itself; he is a man of integrity dedicated to equal
justice under law. There have been other distortions of Senator
Ashcroft's record.
Mr. President, I was heartened by Senator Feingold's remarks in the
Judiciary Committee executive session yesterday, in which he extended
an olive branch of peace and cooperation to our side of the aisle, and
we have a Senate more evenly divided than we have had for almost 50
years. Senator Feingold has answered President Bush's call to change
the tone in Washington. It is a bold step, a step I hope my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle will follow. I had the opportunity to
speak personally with the witnesses who testified both for and against
John Ashcroft's nomination. Believe me, there is more that binds us
together as a people and a nation than keeps us apart. Let us begin
this Congress in that spirit which Abraham Lincoln used to help heal a
nation, when he warned that ``A house divided against itself cannot
stand.'' I intend to vote for John Ashcroft's nomination to be Attorney
General of the United States. I encourage my colleagues, on both
[[Page S882]]
sides of the aisle, to follow the spirit of Lincoln, and help renew the
ties that bind us together, and to resist the temptation to use this
process for political gain, and further divide us as a nation.
I think once John Ashcroft is approved as Attorney General of the
United States, he will be an outstanding and extraordinary Attorney
General for all American people.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Reid for
reserving this time for me.
As most people know, there were several Members who came out early
with a position on John Ashcroft. Most came out for him before the
hearings, and I came out against his confirmation. The people who came
out for John Ashcroft before the hearings said they knew enough to know
they were for him. I said, after looking at the record and being very
familiar with the record, I could not support him. I actually asked
then-President-elect Bush to reconsider his choice because I believed
him when he said he wanted to unite the Nation rather than divide the
Nation. I felt this nomination would be very divisive, would raise the
very same issues that were raised during one of the most difficult
campaigns that I certainly ever remember for President.
I think what I said was borne out. This Presidential election was a
mandate. Many people think if all the votes had been counted, it might
have come out a different way. That is not the point. The point is,
because it was so divisive, whoever won, whether it was Al Gore or
George W. Bush, whoever actually took the office--in this case the
Supreme Court decided to stop the count, and George W. Bush became
President--whoever was President had to know that this was a very
divided Nation and that we needed to put up moderate people--moderate
people--for important offices such as Attorney General, Interior
Secretary, and the like.
For me, it is very rare to oppose a Bush Cabinet nominee. Out of all
of them, I have opposed two. I have supported every other one. One
thing John Ashcroft said is: I supported 90 percent of President
Clinton's judges.
Well, I supported 90 percent of George W. Bush's Cabinet picks.
Therefore, when I choose to say no, it is because I feel very deeply
and very firmly that John Ashcroft is not the right choice.
President Bush said he picked John Ashcroft because ``he has a
commitment to fair and firm and impartial administration of justice.''
He told us that John Ashcroft is ``a man who has a good and decent
heart,'' and he asked us to look into the heart of John Ashcroft.
Believe me, I have done that. And I have looked into the hearts of
people who John Ashcroft has hurt. I believe this nomination should be
rejected. I will be very specific.
Judge Ronnie White: Was John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge Ronnie
White fair? Did he have a good heart when it came to dealing with Judge
Ronnie White? Let's revisit it. The American Bar Association gave Judge
White a unanimous qualified rating. Judge White was introduced at his
nomination hearing for judgeship in front of the Judiciary Committee
with glowing remarks by Senator Bond. With no warning, John Ashcroft
championed the defeat of Judge White's nomination on the Senate floor.
I have been in elective life for 25 years; certain things you do not
remember and a lot of things you do. I will never forget the day this
Senate voted down Judge Ronnie White on a straight partisan vote--the
first time in 50 long years that a judge nominee who had been passed
favorably through the Judiciary Committee was so treated.
Why would I remember it so clearly? I thought a few people might vote
no just as we have on many judge nominations. But I never thought that
John Ashcroft would have rounded up and made it a big political issue
that all the Republicans would stick with him on this vote. We all
know, because we are not children in this body, there are other ways to
treat someone who suddenly doesn't look like he will be confirmed. You
bring it back to the committee, you have another vote. You don't do
what they did to Ronnie White.
I remember that Congresswoman Maxine Waters, one of my good friends,
came over from the House that day. She was here because she wanted to
celebrate the fact that Ronnie White was going to get this judgeship.
She and I looked at each other as the nomination went down. It was a
humiliating defeat. It was a sad, sad day.
I compliment those Senators on the Judiciary Committee who apologized
to Ronnie White. He never, ever should have been treated that way. It
was unnecessary to do that to any human being.
So, yes, I have looked into John Ashcroft's heart. And I say how
could someone with a good heart do that to another good person? I do
not understand it.
I hope Senator Feingold will be listening, too, when he says to
President Bush: Why don't you renominate Ronnie White in the spirit of
reconciliation?
During his floor remarks, John Ashcroft pointed to Judge White's
dissent in a murder case. It was a horrific case. Yet John Ashcroft did
not ask any questions of Judge White during the confirmation hearing or
even afterwards in written follow-up questions about that case. I think
a fundamental guarantee of our system of justice, particularly from
someone who wants to be an Attorney General, is the right to give
someone you are criticizing the right to be heard.
Judge Ronnie White did not have that right until the Democrats called
him up during this hearing. I appreciate the fact that he had that
hearing in front of the Republicans and Democrats of that committee.
That nomination was sabotaged on the floor of the Senate. It was wrong;
it was harsh; it was cruel; it was humiliating; and it was not
necessary.
I think that speaks volumes about John Ashcroft's commitment to
fairness. On the Senate floor, John Ashcroft said that Judge White was
``pro-criminal, with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' In
the Judiciary Committee hearings last week, Judge White noted that
after a long career in public service, including elective office, he
had never, ever heard himself described that way.
Judge White got the chance to set the record straight. He told the
Judiciary Committee that he voted to affirm the death penalty 41 times
out of 59 cases. And in 10 of the remaining 18, he joined a unanimous
court in reversing. All together, Judge White voted with the majority
of the court in 53 out of 59 cases. In only 6 cases did he dissent in a
death penalty case, and in only 3 of those was he the sole dissenter.
When you add this all up, it turns out that Judge White voted the same
way as Ashcroft appointed judges--95 percent of the time.
How did Judge White feel about John Ashcroft's pro-criminal label?
This is what he said. He told the Judiciary Committee, ``Senator John
Ashcroft seriously distorted my record.'' And he very graciously left
it up to the Senate to decide whether that kind of treatment is
consistent with fair play and justice that an Attorney General is
expected to have.
Conservative columnist Stuart Taylor of the National Journal has
written that John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White is enough to
disqualify him for the position of Attorney General.
Of Mr. Ashcroft's actions in the Ronnie White matter, Mr. Taylor
wrote that Ashcroft:
. . . abused the power of his office by descending to
demagoguery, dishonesty, and character assassination.
Those are not my words. Those are the words of Stuart Taylor, a
conservative journalist for the National Journal.
Let's just say you think everybody is entitled to one mistake, to one
mistreatment of another individual. Let's just say that. Unfortunately,
in this case, I am going to point to a number of other examples.
Take the case of James Hormel. Ambassador Hormel was nominated in
1997 to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. He was approved by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16-2. One of those
``no'' votes was cast by Senator Ashcroft. Why did Senator Ashcroft
oppose Ambassador Hormel, a very well-known businessman, a beautiful
family--why?
[[Page S883]]
Let's check the record. In 1998, when asked about the nomination of
James Hormel, Senator Ashcroft said:
His conduct and the way in which he would represent the
United States is probably not up to the standard that I would
expect.
Senator Ashcroft continued:
He 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.
This is the comment of John Ashcroft on the nomination of James
Hormel. Clearly, by this statement--
He has been a leader in promoting a lifestyle. . .and the
kind of leadership he has exhibited there is likely to be
offensive to. . .individuals in the setting to which he will
be assigned.
To me, you don't have to have a degree in psychology to understand
what John Ashcroft is saying. He is saying he is a leader in promoting
a gay lifestyle. That is what he is saying.
This issue came up at the Judiciary Committee. When Senator Leahy
asked John Ashcroft if he opposed James Hormel because he was gay,
Senator Ashcroft replied:
I did not.
He said:
I made a judgment that it would be ill-advised to make him
an ambassador based on the totality of the record.
He went on to say:
I had known Mr. Hormel for a long time.
Ambassador Hormel responds:
There is simply no truth in Mr. Ashcroft's statement that
he had any objective basis or personal knowledge upon which
to vote against my nomination.
He went on to say:
He refused to give any specific example of anything in my
record on which to base his opposition. I can only conclude
Mr. Ashcroft chose to vote against me solely because I am a
gay man.
Is this fair? I already talked about Ronnie White. Senator Ashcroft
never had the courtesy to ask Ronnie White any questions about the case
that he said disqualified Ronnie White for a judgeship. And he led a
fight here on the floor such that we have not seen in 50 long years to
defeat Ronnie White. And he refused to meet at that time with
Ambassador Hormel.
Ambassador Hormel said: I want to meet with you, Senator Ashcroft.
No. He refused. And Mr. Hormel stated he cannot remember having a
single conversation with the Senator.
Then, in his answers to a written follow-up question after the
Judiciary Committee hearings last week, John Ashcroft changes his
story. Ashcroft stated that:
[B]ased on the totality of Mr. Hormel's advocacy, I didn't
believe he would effectively represent the United States in
Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe.
So we have different answers. First, it was the totality of his
knowledge of Mr. Hormel, whom he knew so well. Then Mr. Hormel says: He
didn't even want to meet with me. And then he changes his answer again.
He hurt James Hormel deeply by not allowing that Ambassadorship to
come up for a vote. I think that kind of hurt says to me that when I
look at his heart, I don't see the kindness and the caring about other
people.
So, you would say, OK, that was two. That was Ronnie White and James
Hormel. Do we stop there? Unfortunately, we don't. We go to Margaret
Morrow. Was John Ashcroft fair to Margaret Morrow, the first woman to
head the Los Angeles Bar Association and the California Bar
Association, nominated to the Federal district court in May of 1996,
and not until 2 whole years later were we able to finally get a vote?
And I must thank Chairman Hatch for that--by February 11, 1998.
Why did it take so long? Simple: John Ashcroft placed a secret hold
on Ms. Morrow's nomination. The hold kept Morrow from having a vote on
the Senate floor; it kept her from having a fair up-or-down vote.
I do not think that is fair. That was hurtful. He said she was an
``activist judge.'' In fact, Ms. Morrow had overwhelming Republican
support, to the contrary.
Robert Bonner, a U.S. attorney appointed by Ronald Reagan, supported
her. Many Senators from the Judiciary Committee, including Senator
Hatch, supported her. James Rogan supported her. And yet he put this
hold on her. Finally, we were able to get him to back off. For 2 years,
that court ran without Margaret Morrow on it, and now she serves
proudly after getting a vote of 67-28.
He was so out of line on that. A strong majority supported Margaret
Morrow.
You have heard the stories: Ronnie White, James Hormel, Margaret
Morrow, human beings with faces and hearts and pulses who were hurt by
John Ashcroft, hurt deeply by John Ashcroft. But there is more.
Bill Lann Lee, was John Ashcroft fair to him when he was nominated to
be Assistant U.S. Attorney for Civil Rights? When he arrived here in
1997, he had a long record at the NAACP of fighting discrimination. Yet
even Lee's former corporate opponents came to lobby for him--what a
wonderful person he is.
He supported the law, the law of giving people a chance, affirmative
action laws. John Ashcroft did not like that law, which, by the way, he
will be sworn now to uphold. He blocked Bill Lann Lee's nomination, and
Bill Lann Lee never got an up-or- down vote. He served as an acting
head of that division.
I know the story of Bill Lann Lee. He is an incredible example of the
American dream. He worked his way up from the bottom of the economic
ladder. His father ran a laundry where they sweated every single day to
help their son get an education, and this is the way he was treated in
the greatest nation in the world. It was hurtful. It was very hurtful
to Bill Lann Lee. It was very hurtful to the people in this country who
were looking to Bill Lann Lee as a role model.
This is what John Ashcroft said about Bill Lann Lee:
We don't need an individual who is trying to go against the
Constitution as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. We
need someone who is going to say I'm here to provide the
administration.
Bill Lann Lee said under oath that he would uphold the Constitution,
just as John Ashcroft is saying he will. Yet he did not give Bill Lann
Lee a chance. He hurt this man deeply.
That is a story of looking into the heart of someone. I think you
have to be judged by not only your words but your deeds in totality, so
I have not given one example; I have given four. I could give more. I
will not.
I want to talk about the Southern Partisan. I want to talk about the
fact that John Ashcroft as a Senator in 1998 gave an interview to the
Southern Partisan magazine. Put in a most straightforward way, this
magazine promotes racism.
This is a picture of a T-shirt that is advertised in this magazine.
This is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, and they sell this on a T-shirt.
This is Latin. It says: ``Thus be it to tyrants.'' It is a picture of
Lincoln: ``Thus be it to tyrants.'' Those are the words that were
uttered by the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was quoted
by Senator Brownback, and he made a beautiful speech. This is sold by
this magazine. The words of John Wilkes Booth are underneath: ``Thus be
it always to tyrants.''
In his interview, John Ashcroft praised the magazine and its mission:
Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've
got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots.
Traditionalists should do more. I've really got to do more.
We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else
we will be taught that these people were giving their lives,
ascribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some
perverted agenda.
Now he says he did not know about the magazine. Let's look at that.
First of all, there was an amazing exchange in the committee between
Senator Biden and John Ashcroft. Senator Biden gave John Ashcroft the
opportunity to denounce this magazine. He said: What do you think of it
now that you know what they do, what they stand for, the T-shirt, and
the rest? John Ashcroft basically did not answer him. Senator Biden was
taken aback because he had the opportunity to say: This is a racist
magazine; I'll never talk to them. He did not say it. He said: I
deplore what is deplorable. That was his response to Senator Biden.
He had a chance. He said:
On the magazine, frankly, I can't say that I knew very much
at all. . . . I've given magazine interviews to lots of
people . . . and I regret that speaking to them is being used
to imply that I agree with their views.
If you go back to what he said when he spoke to them, he said:
Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've
got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots.
. . .
[[Page S884]]
So how does he say he never heard of the magazine when you look at
his quote and he knows of the magazine, because he says:
Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've
got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots.
. . .
And it goes on. It does not ring true.
He had a chance in simple language to say: I will never talk to them
again. He did not do it.
We could look at Bob Jones University, and I will not go into the
details of that, but we have to believe that he knew about the racist
policies when he accepted their degree because those policies were the
subject of a huge Supreme Court case that was decided when he was
attorney general of Missouri.
The case was Bob Jones v. the United States. It was on the front page
of the major newspapers when it was decided. In that case, the Supreme
Court reversed the university's tax exempt status because of the racist
policy that John Ashcroft said he did not know about. But he was an
attorney general at the time that decision came down.
Again, I think he could have said more at the hearings to distance
himself from the university's policies.
These are the things that say to me, out of the 280 million Americans
in our country, there has to be someone who is better suited for this
job.
We have heard a lot about a woman's right to choose. Regardless of
your feelings on it--I happen to be of a mind that the Government has
no business telling a woman about her reproductive health care in the
beginning of a pregnancy, which is Roe v. Wade; that is the law of the
land--I would hope we could come together when it comes to preventing
unwanted pregnancies by contraception. That seems to be an area of
common ground where both sides could come together. Because if you do
not get pregnant, if you do not want a child, you do not have to have
an abortion. It works. It will lower the number of abortions.
But when John Ashcroft was attorney general, he sued nurses who were
giving contraception to women. Let me repeat that. He went against
settled law in Missouri when he was attorney general. He tried to stop
nurses, through the courts, from handing out contraception. It was
settled law that those nurses could do it, but John Ashcroft argued
that Missouri law did not allow for it.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled against John Ashcroft. It strongly
pointed out his interpretation was out of step with settled law. This
is what the Missouri Supreme Court had to say:
We believe the acts of the nurses [providing
contraceptives, breast and pelvic exams] are precisely the
types of acts the legislature contemplated. . . .
The Court believes that it is significant that while at
least forty states have modernized and expanded their nursing
practice laws during the past fifteen years, neither counsel
nor the Court have discovered any case challenging nurses'
authority to act as the nurses herein acted.
In other words, in 40 States, not one other attorney general ever
sued nurses and tried to stop them from providing these services to
women. On this occasion, it was in rural clinics. So when John Ashcroft
says he is going to uphold settled law, I am sure he said that when he
was the attorney general of Missouri.
Then, if we look at other issues concerning women, he also sued the
National Organization for Women. When he was an attorney general in the
1980s, he sued NOW to stop their campaign to win ratification of the
Equal Rights Amendment. Now, maybe he does not agree with the Equal
Rights Amendment, he does not want women to be equal through the Equal
Rights Amendment. Maybe he does not believe it is necessary, for
whatever reason. But to sue a woman's organization for 3 years--losing
at every step but never giving up; taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court
after the Circuit Court of Appeals, and they all rejected his
arguments--it seems to me, since that was also settled law in a case
from 1961, we have to question: What does he mean when he says he will
accept settled law?
Voluntary desegregation: Others have spoken about this. How do you
fight a voluntary desegregation plan that everyone came together and
said was a good way to help our kids? Well, he figured out how to do
it. And I will tell you, his rhetoric was very strong. He called the
voluntary plan an ``outrage against human decency'' and an ``outrage
against the children of this State.''
The conservative Economist magazine described Ashcroft this way--and
it turned out he and his opponent were both arguing:
The campaign quickly degenerated into a context over who
was most opposed to the plan for voluntary racial
desegregation . . .
The court roundly criticized then-Attorney General Ashcroft. They
said:
The court can only draw one conclusion . . . the state has,
as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the
authority of this court.
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1982, Ashcroft was ``making
himself a familiar advocate before the Supreme Court, most often as the
antagonist of civil rights interests.''
So here you have a nominee, who is supposed to firmly uphold the
civil rights laws, being called an antagonist of civil rights interests
in an article in 1982.
This was an election where many African American voters believed they
were disenfranchised. They are looking at this Senate and thinking they
cannot believe that this is the individual George Bush would put before
us. Why do I say that? Because there is a case on point about voter
registration. While John Ashcroft was Missouri Governor, he vetoed a
bill that would have allowed volunteers to register voters in the
largely African American city of St. Louis; in other words, a bill to
allow the League of Women Voters to encourage voter registration.
The very interesting bottom line of this case is, in the white parts
of the county he allowed this voter registration to go on. When he
vetoed the first bill, he said he had a problem with it. But then he
vetoed it again. It seems to me that anyone who believes that we ought
to have our voting rights be sacred in this Nation would have problems
voting for this nominee.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted at the time:
Gov. John Ashcroft has decided that [some citizens] . . .
should continue to be treated differently from others on the
matter of voter registration.
So, Mr. President, I am sure you are glad to hear I am about to sum
up, to finish. What I have tried to do in this presentation is to speak
from my heart because that is what George Bush asked me to do. He said:
Look in your heart and look in the heart of John Ashcroft. I believe
that he meant for me to do that.
In my advise and consent responsibility, I have looked into the heart
of John Ashcroft. And how can I do it? By looking at the way he treats
other people. My mother taught me to do that. You can say a lot of
things in life. You can tell your kids, be good to your neighbor, but
if they see you walk past your neighbor, if your neighbor is lying on
the street, they know something is not right.
When I talk to people and see people such as Ronnie White--a
beautiful family man, qualified, the American dream personified--
humiliated on the Senate floor, I cannot look away from that. When I
see Margaret Morrow hanging and twisting in the wind for 2 years
because John Ashcroft put a secret hold on her, I have to look at that.
When I see James Hormel, a distinguished man, humiliated, hurt, turned
down for an Ambassadorship because he happened to be a gay man, I
cannot look away from that. And when I see Bill Lann Lee, whose father
and mother sweated in a laundry so that he could get the American
dream--when I see him hurt and humiliated--I cannot look away from
that.
Maybe my colleagues can, and they see other things that I do not see.
I respect them so much. And I respect their right to feel strongly,
just as I do on the other side of this issue. But I have taken this
time because I feel so deeply about this.
The Attorney General is the Nation's guardian of civil rights, of
human rights, of women's rights, of the environment, of sensible gun
laws. He or she must be moderate to bring the country together. What
did John Ashcroft say about moderates? He said:
There are two things you find in the middle of the road: A
moderate and a dead skunk, and I don't want to be either.
Mr. President, I have looked into the heart of John Ashcroft. I do
not think he is the right person for this job.
[[Page S885]]
I yield the floor.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, another topic that keeps being brought up
again and again is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge Ronnie White.
I am concerned that some of my colleagues continue to denigrate Senator
Ashcroft for his involvement in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White.
It has been said that Senator Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record
and wrongly painted him as pro-criminal and anti-law enforcement.
But there were many reasons to vote against confirmation for Judge
White. In fact, every Republican in the Senate did so. I have reviewed
Judge White's record and several of his dissenting opinions in death
penalty cases, and I can understand Senator Ashcroft's opposition to
Judge White's nomination to the federal bench.
For instance in the Johnson case, the defendant was convicted on four
counts of first-degree murder for killing three officers and the wife
of the sheriff. Johnson was sentenced to death on all counts. On
appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Judge White
dissented arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of
counsel. Judge White thought that Johnson deserved further opportunity
to present a defense based on post-traumatic stress disorder. But the
majority showed that here was no credible evidence that Johnson
suffered from this disorder. Rather, it was clear that defense counsel
had fabricated a story that was quickly disproved at trial. For
instance, defense counsel stated that Johnson had placed a perimeter of
cans and strings and had deflated the tires of his car. At trial,
testimony revealed that police officers had taken these actions, not
the defendant.
Further, Congressman Kenneth Hulshof, the prosecutor in the Johnson
case testified at Senator Ashcroft's hearings that it was almost
impossible to make out an argument for ineffective assistance of
counsel because the defendant ``hired counsel of his own choosing. He
picked from our area in mid-Missouri what . . . I referred to as a
dream team.''
Judge White has every right to pen a dissent in Johnson and other
cases involving the death penalty. Similarly, every Senator has the
duty to evaluate these opinions as part of Judge White's judicial
record. And that's just what Senator Ashcroft did. At no time did
Senator Ashcroft derogate Judge White's background.
I consider Judge White to be a decent man with an impressive personal
background. He has accomplished a great deal and come up from humble
beginnings. But his record of dissenting in death penalty cases was
sufficiently troubling to cause Senator Ashcroft and others to oppose
the nomination.
Many of my colleagues have impugned Senator Ashcroft's motives for
voting against Judge White. But Judge White's nomination was strongly
opposed by many of Senator Ashcroft's constituents and also by major
law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association
and the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs.
Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by
Johnson, testified, ``I opposed Judge White's nomination to the federal
bench, an I asked Senator Ashcroft to join me because of Judge White's
opinion on a death penalty cease. . . in his opinion, Judge White urged
that Johnson be given a second chance at freedom. I cannot understand
his reasoning. I know that the four people killed were not given a
second chance.''
Finally, many of my colleagues have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's
opposition to Judge White was underhanded and done with stealth. Well,
Senator Ashcroft voted against Judge White's nomination in committee.
He expressed his disapproval at that time. If he had held up the
nomination in committee without allowing it to proceed to the floor he
would have been criticized for delay.
Indeed, Senator Boxer pleaded during a debate about several judges
including Ronnie White,
I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all
things that ace good in our country, give people a chance. If
you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with
something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We
can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It
is wrong. You would not do it to a friend.--Cong. Rec. S.
11871, Oct. 4, 1999.
Thus, Senator Ashcroft was between a rock and a hard place as to how
to raise his legitimate concerns about Judge White.
Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity, one of the most
qualified nominees for Attorney General that we have ever seen. His
opposition to Judge White was principled and in keeping with the proper
exercise of the advice and consent duty of a senator. I regret that we
have needed to revisit this issue at such great length.
Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent to have an op-ed piece, which
responds to one of the points that Senator Boxer was raising, be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
John Ashcroft, American Partisan
(By Thomas G. West)
Frustrated by the absence of any real dirt on Senator John
Ashcroft, his ideological enemies have descended into
dishonesty and distortion. He is being attacked as a racist
and a defender of slavery. A quotation from his 1998
interview with ``Southern Partisan'' magazine has been
denounced with particular venom.
Those circulating that quotation suggest that Ashcroft was
praising the confederate cause, including slavery. But in
context he was praising the antislavery principles of
America's Founding Fathers. I should know, because he was
talking about my book.
Here is how the full quotation reads in the original:
``Ashcroft: Revisionism is a threat to the respect that
Americans have for their freedoms and the liberty that was at
the core of those who founded this country, and when we see
George Washington, the founder of our country, called a
racist, that is just total revisionist nonsense, a diatribe
against the values of America. Have you read Thomas West's
book, ``Vindicating the Founders''?
``Interviewer: I've met Professor West, and I read one of
his earlier books, but not that one.
``Ashcroft: I wish I had another copy: I'd send it to you.
I gave it away to a newspaper editor. West virtually
disassembles all of these malicious attacks the revisionists
have brought against our Founders. Your magazine also helps
set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that,
of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee,
[Stonewall] Jackson and [Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists
must do more. I've got to do more. 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.''
Ashcroft's language is telling. It is a clear reference to
the final words of the Declaration of Independence, where the
signers ``pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes, and
our sacred honor.'' The ``perverted agenda'' to which
Ashcroft alludes is the ideology of proslavery, which he is
utterly rejecting here.
``Southern Partisan'' has been described, correctly, as a
magazine that defends the South in the Civil War. But
Ashcroft has just pointed out, correctly, that ``liberty''--
not slavery--was ``at the core'' of the founding, and that
Washington was not a racist. His praise of the three
Confederate leaders, therefore, must be taken in context as
an expression of respect for men of honor and talent, but in
no way for the proslavery policies of the Confederacy.
Ashcroft was deploring, quite sensibly, that people are
being taught to despise and hate the Founders, instead of
respecting them for creating the first country in history
dedicated to the principle that ``all men are created
equal.''
My ``Vindicating the Founders'' shows that this dedication
led directly to the abolition of slavery in the northern
states, and to the 1787 law banning slavery from the
territories north of the Ohio River. These states became the
American heartland that later, following Lincoln's lead,
stood up for the founding principles, won the Civil War, and
abolished slavery throughout the country.
Contrary to opponents of his nomination, taken as a whole
this interview shows that Ashcroft is an admirer of the
``liberty that was at the core'' of the American founding. He
is therefore likely to be especially respectful toward the
original meaning of the Constitution, which was designed to
secure ``the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.''
The deeper point that Ashcroft was pointing to is this:
Liberals today generally agree with Bill Clinton, who said in
a 1997 speech that Thomas Jefferson's view of equality meant
that ``you had to be white, you had to be male, and . . . you
had to own property.'' Because Clinton and other liberals
misunderstand the founding so badly, they believe in a
``living Constitution'' whose meaning changes to keep up with
the times. Or, as Clinton put it in the same speech, our
history is the story of ``new and higher definitions--and
more meaningful definitions--of equality and dignity and
freedom.''
John Ashcroft believes in the original definition of
equality and liberty: that all human beings deserve to be
free and to keep the property they earn with their own
hands, rather than have it taken away by a government that
pretends to know better than they do what to do with that
property.
[[Page S886]]
In the incoming Bush administration, with Ashcroft as
Attorney General, perhaps America has a chance to go back to
the genuine principles of the Founders, without trying to
come up with ``new and higher definitions'' of them, as has
been the habit of the past eight years.
Ashcroft has also been unjustly vilified for a speech at
Bob Jones University in 1999. His words, ``We have no king
but Jesus,'' have been denounced as narrow and bigoted--as if
the Constitution had some sort of religious test that
excludes serious Christians from public office. Yet in that
speech, as in the ``Southern Partisan'' interview, Ashcroft
singled out for his highest praise the Founders' inclusive
vision of equal rights for all.
To his Bob Jones audience, Ashcroft quotes with reverence
the Declaration's famous phrases, including ``endowed by our
Creator with certain inalienable rights.'' He celebrates the
fact that Christians, indeed most Americans, believe these
rights come from ``our Creator,'' not from a merely ``civic
and temporal'' source in ``Caesar'' or ``the king.'' For, as
Ashcroft knows, if our rights come merely from government,
then government may one day decide to take them away.
In this conviction he expresses his agreement with the
greatest statesmen and heroes of the past, from Washington
and Jefferson to Lincoln and Reagan.
Based on these two Ashcroft pronouncements--his ``Southern
Partisan'' interview, and his Bob Jones speech--a fair-minded
reader would conclude that Ashcroft is just the kind of man
that America needs as its next Attorney General: a man
devoted, to the depth of his heart, to the great principle of
the equality of men that has made America the greatest nation
on earth.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to discuss some civil rights issues
surrounding the nomination of Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney General.
At the hearings and in supplemental questions, my colleagues have
raised issues concerning Senator Ashcroft's plans for the Civil Rights
Division of the Department of Justice should he be confirmed as
Attorney General. Let me say that I am confident that Senator Ashcroft
will fight for the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. He
believes that everyone deserves an opportunity to succeed and that
those at the bottom of our society may need a helping hand.
Senator Ashcroft strongly supports ``affirmative access'' programs.
As he testified, ``We can expand the invitation for people to
participate aggressively so that no one is denied the capacity to
participate simply because they didn't know about the opportunities. We
can work on education, which is the best way for people to have access
to achievement.''
Senator Ashcroft wants to encourage achievement and access to
achievement. He wants to avoid what President Bush called the ``soft
bigotry of low expectations'' that fuels many race-conscious programs.
It is true that Senator Ashcroft is skeptical about government
programs that categorize people by race. Many of these programs would
be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v.
Pena. That decision stated that all governmental racial classifications
should be subject to strict scrutiny, that is such classifications must
be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The
Supreme Court made clear that there was no such thing as a ``benign''
racial classification, and that the government may treat people
differently because of their race for only the most compelling reason.
This view of governmental racial classifications comports with the
development of constitutional protections for civil liberties. Senator
Ashcroft is solidly with the Supreme Court on this issue.
Some of my colleagues and certain special interest groups have
especially questioned Senator Ashcroft's ability to support and defend
civil liberties because he opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to
be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Well, all but one
Republican in the Judiciary Committee opposed this nominee. Let me say
that I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee and the difficult
circumstances in which his family came to this country, worked hard,
and realized the American dream.
Despite this high personal regard, I was deeply concerned about Mr.
Lee's nomination because much of his career was devoted to preserving
constitutionally suspect race-conscious public policies that ultimately
sort and divide citizens by race. At the time of his hearings, it was
clear that he would have us continue down the road of racial spoils, a
road on which Americans are seen principally through the looking glass
of race. As the Supreme Court has held, that would be unconstitutional.
Indeed, it is now clear that we were right to oppose the nomination
of Mr. Lee. Over the Senate's objections, President Clinton made a
recess appointment of Mr. Lee to head the Civil Rights Division. His
record has been one of pursuing constitutionally suspect, race-based
policies at great cost to civil liberties.
Under Mr. Lee's leadership, the Civil Rights Division has waged a war
against testing standards in public sector employment based on what he
considers to be the ``adverse impact'' of such testing. He has
repeatedly sought to replace objective hiring processes with devices
designed to boost minorities.
In 1998, a federal judge, a Carter-appointee, assessed an
unprecedented $1.8 million attorney fee award against the Civil Rights
Division for a lawsuit against the city of Torrance, California. The
Judge found the suit ``frivolous, unreasonable and without
foundation.'' Despite this embarrassment, the Division continues to
argue that using test results and hiring those who score best on the
test is, in the words of one civil rights division deputy, ``the worst
possible way to select applicants.''
Furthermore, under Mr. Lee, the Civil Rights Division has continued
the legal challenge to Proposition 209, a measure that prohibited
government discrimination of Californians on the basis of race, gender,
or national origin. These suits continue despite the fact that
Proposition 209 has repeatedly been upheld by federal courts.
Finally, under Bill Lann Lee, the Division continued to defend the
federal contract set-aside struck down by the Supreme Court in Adarand.
At the time of Mr. Lee's nomination I made a lengthy speech on this
floor. I regret that Mr. Lee's tenure has shown that my concerns were
not unfounded. Mr. Lee's actions show that he was unable to distinguish
the substantive role of being a law enforcer for all citizens from
being a private activist litigator charged with pushing the limits of
the law.
Senator Ashcroft's principled opposition to Mr. Lee has been
vindicated over time. Not only was Mr. Lee an activist, but he
continued to pursue his activist agenda once in a position of trust for
all Americans. The signs that he would do this were clear at his
hearings at which he narrowly defined the rule in Adarand and could not
distinguish cases that he would bring as Assistant Attorney General
from those he brought in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
By contrast, Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly distinguished his role
as a legislator from that of the Attorney General. He understands that
his political advocacy gets checked at the door of the Department of
Justice. Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly stated that he would enforce
the law as it exists to protect the civil liberties of all Americans.
He is committed to defending the constitutional rights of all
individuals and has testified that he will make the enforcement of
civil rights one of his topmost priorities. As Senator Ashcroft stated,
``My highest priority is to ensure that the Department of Justice lives
up to its heritage of enforcing the rule of law, and in particular,
guaranteeing legal rights for the advancement of all Americans. . . .
[O]ne of my highest priorities at the Department will be to target the
unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.''
Senator Ashcroft will be a faithful guardian of our civil liberties,
and it is for this reason and many others that I wholeheartedly support
his nomination to be Attorney General.
Mr. President, some claim that Senator Ashcroft will not uphold the
law with regard to abortion.
I think it would be appropriate at this time to set the record
straight on John Ashcroft's record and commitments regarding abortion--
an issue we have heard a lot about during this confirmation process.
While Senator Ashcroft's critics have spared nothing in their
attempts to distort his record and create fear, Senator Ashcroft's
record over 25 years as a public servant, and his testimony before the
Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing, demonstrate his
lifelong commitment to the rule of law and his respect for the uniquely
[[Page S887]]
different roles of a legislator and a law enforcer. Senator Ashcroft
has proven that he can objectively interpret and enforce the law--even
where the law may diverge from his personal views on policy. His record
and character demonstrate that he can be, as he has pledged, ``law
oriented and not results oriented.''
Contrary to the fear-mongering of his critics, Senator Ashcroft will
enforce the law protecting a woman's right to an abortion. He was very
straightforward in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee when he
stated that, in his view, Roe versus Wade is settled law and that the
Supreme Court's decisions upholding Roe ``have been multiple, they have
been recent and they have been emphatic.'' He said he would enforce the
law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
When asked whether he would seek to change the Supreme Court's
interpretation of the law, Senator Ashcroft stated that ``it is not the
agenda of the President-elect to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe.
And as his Attorney General, I don't think it could be my agenda to
seek an opportunity to overturn Roe.'' He also stated that as Attorney
General, it wouldn't be his job to ``try and alter the position of the
administration.''
Senator Ashcroft clearly recognized the importance of not devaluing
``the currency'' of the Solicitor General's Office by taking matters to
the Supreme Court on a basis the Court has already stated it does not
want to entertain. He noted that in this way, ``accepting Roe and Casey
as settled law is important, not just to this arena, but important in
terms of the credibility of the Department.''
He said he would give advice based upon sound legal analysis, not
ideology or personal beliefs. He made a commitment that ``if the law
provides something that is contrary to my ideological belief, I would
provide them with that same best judgment of the law.''
From Senator Ashcroft, those are not just words. Throughout his
career, he has demonstrated that he can do just that.
For example, as Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft did not
let his personal opinion on abortion cloud his legal analysis. He
protected the confidentiality of abortion records maintained by the
Missouri Department of Health--even when they were requested by pro-
life groups.
Likewise, when asked to determine whether a death certificate was
required for all abortions, regardless of the age of the fetus,
Attorney General Ashcroft--despite his personal view that life begins
at conception--issued an opinion that Missouri law did not require any
type of certificate if the fetus was 20 weeks old or less. His legal
analysis was fair and objective and unaffected by what his policy views
may have been.
There has also been, what I consider, unfounded skepticism over
whether Senator Ashcroft would vigorously enforce clinic access and
antiviolence statutes. Being pro-life is not inconsistent with opposing
violence at clinics. The primary focus of the opposition has been the
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of ``FACE''. Senator Ashcroft
supports the FACE law, and always has.
Senator Ashcroft testified specifically on how he would enforce FACE
and other clinic access and antiviolence laws. He stated clearly that
he would enforce these laws ``vigorously'', that he would investigate
allegations ``thoroughly'' and that he would devote resources to these
cases on a ``'priority basis.''
He further stated that he would maintain the appropriate task forces
which have been created to facilitate enforcement of clinic access and
antiviolence statutes.
These statements are totally consistent with Senator Ashcroft's long
record of speaking out against violence and his belief that the first
amendment does not give anyone the right to ``violate the person,
safety, and security'' of another.
Senator Ashcroft has always spoken out against clinic violence and
other forms of domestic terrorism. He has written to constituents about
his strong opposition to violence and his belief that, regardless of
his personal views on abortion, people should be able to enter abortion
clinics safely. He voted for Senator Schumer's amendment to the
bankruptcy bill that made debts incurred as a result of abortion clinic
violence non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Senator Ashcroft has always condemned criminal violence at abortion
clinics--or anywhere for that matter--and believes people who commit
these acts of violence and intimidation should be punished to the
fullest extent of the law. As Attorney General he'll do just that.
Access to contraceptives is another area that I think Senator
Ashcroft has been unfairly criticized. His critics make dire
predictions about the future that are totally unsupported by Senator
Ashcroft's testimony. Senator Ashcroft could not have testified any
more clearly on the issue of contraception. He stated that: ``I think
individuals who want to use contraceptives have every right to do so .
. . [and] I think that right is guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States.'' He also testified that he would defend current laws
should they be attacked. What more can he say? Is there anything a pro-
life nominee could say to please the pro-abortion interest groups?
Senator Ashcroft's opponents take great pains to say that they do not
oppose him on ideological grounds. Well you could have fooled me. Their
argument is that someone who has been active in advocating a particular
policy position cannot set that aside and enforce the law fairly. I
don't believe they can be serious. Does this mean that a person of
character and integrity who had been active in the pro-choice movement
could never be Attorney General? And what about the death penalty?
Could we have no future Attorney General, regardless of how honest and
well-qualified, who opposed the death penalty? Of course not. In fact,
Republicans voted to confirm Janet Reno, despite her personal
opposition to the death penalty, because she said she could still
enforce the law even though she disagreed with it.
If this is not about ideology, then we should get to the business of
confirming Senator Ashcroft. He has given strong and specific
assurances to the Senate on abortion and other questions. These
assurances are backed up by his proven record as Missouri attorney
general and Governor. Most importantly, they are backed up by Senator
Ashcroft's personal integrity and decency--characteristics he holds as
is known personally by almost every Member of this body.
Members know John Ashcroft is a man of his word--it's time that they
act on it and confirm him as Attorney General.
Mr. President, some have criticized Senator Ashcroft's handling of
voter registration in Missouri. Some of my colleagues have charged that
as Governor, John Ashcroft essentially blocked two bills that would
have required the city of St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners to
deputize private voter registration volunteers. These bills were
opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in St. Louis. Opposition
included the bipartisan St. Louis County Board of Election
Commissioners, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Tom Villa, and
St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach. Tom Villa was a noted
Democratic leader, and St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach was a
Democrat who was the prosecutor in the St. Louis area. All of these
people opposed the legislative plan. The recommendations of these
officials was one of the reasons that John Ashcroft vetoed the bills.
It was insinuated during the hearings that these actions were taken
out of some kind of partisan or racial motivation, because the city of
St. Louis is predominantly black and Democratic. But this implication
is seriously discredited by the history of voter registration in St.
Louis and earlier Federal court cases.
The city board has a long history of refusing to deputize private
voter registration deputies, long before John Ashcroft appointed anyone
to that board. Indeed, in 1981 a lawsuit was filed against the members
of the St. Louis board concerning the failure to deputize voter
registration deputies. The Federal District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri explicitly rejected charges of racial animus. The
court found that the board properly refused to deputize volunteers to
prevent
[[Page S888]]
fraud and ensure impartiality and administrative efficiency. Moreover,
these conclusions were sustained by the eighth circuit, in an opinion
by Judge McMillan, a prominent African-American jurist.
Some have also claimed that then-Governor Ashcroft refused to appoint
a diverse group of commissioners to the election board. This is simply
untrue. Mr. Jerry Hunter, the former labor secretary of Missouri,
testified that Senator Ashcroft worked hard to increase black
representation on the St. Louis City Election Board, but his efforts
were stalled by State senators.
Mr. Hunter testified that, ``Governor Ashcroft's first black nominee
for the St. Louis City Election Board was rejected by the black State
senator, because that person did not come out of his organization.''
When then-Governor Ashcroft came up with a second black attorney, this
candidate was also rejected by two black State senators. As Mr. Hunter
stated, ``[F]rom the beginning, any efforts to make changes in the St.
Louis City Election Board were forestalled because the state senators
wanted people from their own organization.'' Apparently for these State
senators the political spoils system was more important than the voters
of St. Louis.
Finally, my colleagues imply that these voter registration issues
will make Senator Ashcroft less able to deal with allegations of voting
improprieties resulting from the Florida vote in the Presidential
election. Yet Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly testified, ``I will
investigate any alleged voting rights violation that has credible
evidence. . . . I have no reason not to go forward, and would not
refuse to go forward for any reason other than a conclusion that there
wasn't credible evidence to pursue the case.''
Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have continued to express
concerns about Senator Ashcroft's actions with regard to conducting a
telephone interview with a magazine called Southern Partisan. Their
concern is what message that interview might have sent to the country.
It is clear, however, that Senator Ashcroft has forthrightly and
forcefully condemned racism and discrimination, and he has left no
doubt or ambiguity regarding his views on that matter.
During his confirmation hearings, Senator Ashcroft said, ``Let me
make something as plain as I can make it. Discrimination is wrong.
Slavery was abhorrent. Fundamental to my belief in freedom and liberty
is that these are God-given rights.'' And in his responses to written
questions, he said, ``I reject racism in all its forms. I find racial
discrimination abhorrent, and against everything that I believe in.''
It is clear to me that John Ashcroft believes in equal treatment under
the law for everyone. He believes in it, and he has committed to fight
to make it a reality for all Americans.
Now, as to the magazine itself, Senator Ashcroft contritely admitted
that he does not know very much about it. He confessed that he should
have done more research about it before talking to them. And he said
that he did not intend his telephone interview--or any other interview
he has participated in during his career--as an automatic endorsement
of the editorial positions of those publications. John Ashcroft went
even further than that. He said, ``I condemn those things which are
condemnable'' about Southern Partisan magazine. This was a strong
statement against any unacceptable ideas discussed in that publication.
And it was the strongest statement possible from someone who did not
personally know the facts.
Despite Senator Ashcroft's contriteness and strong words, some
Senators and interest groups have demanded that Senator Ashcroft go out
on a limb and add his derision based upon an acceptance at face value
of all the negative allegations concerning that magazine. In my
opinion, Mr. President, this led to one of the most profound moments of
the confirmation hearings. A member of the committee pushed Senator
Ashcroft to label the Southern Partisan magazine as ``racist''--even
after Senator Ashcroft explained that he did not know whether that was
true. The profound part was John Ashcroft's response. He said, ``I know
they've been accused of being racist. I have to say this, Senator: I
would rather be falsely accused of being a racist than to falsely
accuse someone else of being a racist.'' This exchange tells volumes
about Senator Ashcroft's moral character, deep sense of fairness, and
his fitness for the office of Attorney General. It would have been a
lot easier for him just to say, ``Yes, I agree with anyone who uses
that term about someone else.'' Doing so would have saved him from
further bashing by the committee and the press. It would have been
politically expedient. But John Ashcroft choose to take the high road,
not to heap disdain onto something he didn't know about just because it
would have suited his interests to do so. This was a vivid example of
good judgment and good character.
This is not to say that John Ashcroft defended anything about the
magazine. Clearly he did not. In fact, when Senator Biden asked him
whether the magazine was condemnable because it sells T-shirts that
imply that Lincoln's assassin did a good thing, he answered: ``If they
do that, I condemn'' it. And he clarified that ``Abraham Lincoln is my
favorite political figure in the history of this country.'' What John
Ashcroft did was state his absolute intolerance for racism and bigotry,
and he did so honestly without creating a straw man, a scapegoat, or a
fall guy.
I think we need to ask anyone who is not satisfied with John
Ashcroft's answers what they really want. What do his accusers think
justice is? I surely hope that no one in this body would say that
justice means the knee-jerk condemnation of things they do not know
about, so long as that condemnation is politically expedient.
Mr. President, I think this issue has shed light on why John Ashcroft
will be a fair and principled Attorney General. As he told the
Judiciary Committee, ``I believe racism is wrong. I repudiate it. I
repudiate racist organizations. I'm not a member of any of them. I
don't subscribe to them. And I reject them.'' These are straightforward
words from an honest man. I look forward to having such a man running
our Department of Justice.
Mr. President, I heard one of my colleagues today criticize Senator
Ashcroft's view of the second amendment. While I disagree with these
vague criticisms, I do believe that one of the biggest challenges that
Senator Ashcroft will face as Attorney General is to increase the
prosecution of federal gun crimes. Where there is little consensus in
Congress regarding new gun control legislation, there is widespread
consensus that current gun laws can and should be prosecuted more
vigorously.
While the Clinton administration has increased the regulation of
licensed gun dealers, it has not increased the prosecution of Federal
gun crimes in a like manner. For example:
Between 1992 and 1998, prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm
in the commission of a felony dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7.045 to
approximately 3,800.
It is a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school grounds, but the
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only eight cases under this law
in 1998, even though more than 6,000 students brought guns to school.
The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only five such cases in 1997.
It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a juvenile, but the
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases under this law in
1998 and only five in 1997.
It is a Federal crime to transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault
weapon, but the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only four cases
under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997.
As his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear,
Senator Ashcroft will reverse this trend and make gun prosecutions a
priority. In the Senate, John Ashcroft was one of the leaders in
fighting gun crimes. For example, in response to the decline in gun
prosecutions by the Justice Department, Senator Ashcroft sponsored
legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional Federal
prosecutors and agents to increase the Federal prosecution of criminals
who use guns.
In addition, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to prohibit
juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition
clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Ashcroft juvenile assault
weapons ban in May of 1999.
[[Page S889]]
Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation that prohibits any person
convicted of even misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing
a firearm, and he voted for legislation to extend the Brady Act to
prohibit persons who commit violent crimes as juveniles from possessing
firearms.
In order to close the so-called ``gun show loophole,'' Senator
Ashcroft voted for legislation, which I authored, to require mandatory
instant background checks for all firearm purchases at gun shows.
Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to require a 5-year mandatory
minimum prison sentence for Federal gun crimes and for legislation to
encourage schools to expel students who bring guns to school.
Senator Ashcroft voted for the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act that
prohibits the possession of a firearm in a school zone, and he voted
for legislation to require gun dealers to offer child safety locks and
other gun safety devices for sale.
As a former state attorney general and president of the National
Association of Attorneys General, Senator Ashcroft knows that criminal
laws are useless if not enforced. Given his proven commitment to
fighting gun violence, there can be little doubt that Attorney General
Ashcroft will make gun prosecutions a priority for the Justice
Department.
Mr. President, I would like to address one more issue concerning
Senator Ashcroft's position on gun enforcement. Some special-interest
groups have made the ridiculous assertion that an Ashcroft Justice
Department would not defend the constitutionality of certain gun laws.
As Senator Ashcroft noted at his hearing, there is a longstanding
policy for the Solicitor General's office to defend Federal statutes in
court if there is a reasonable basis for doing so. In other words, the
Justice Department will defend Federal statutes even if that particular
administration does not agree with the statute as a matter of policy.
This longstanding policy applies to all Federal statutes, except those
which infringe on the prerogatives of the President. This longstanding
policy promotes the integrity and the consistent administration of
Federal law.
At his confirmation hearing, in response to Senator Kennedy, Senator
Ashcroft pledged to ``vigorously defend'' the constitutionality of the
ban on possession of firearms by persons convicted of domestic
violence. In fact, Senator Ashcroft voted for the legislation that
prohibited persons convicted of domestic violence from possessing
firearms. And in response both to Senators Feinstein and Kennedy,
Senator Ashcroft pledged to maintain the Justice Department's position
of defending the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban. In
short, Senator Ashcroft made clear that the Justice Department would
defend and enforce Federal gun laws whether or not he agreed with such
laws as a matter of policy.
Senator Ashcroft's record as Missouri attorney general supports his
pledge to defend and enforce gun laws regardless of his personal
beliefs. For example, as the attorney general of Missouri, John
Ashcroft issued an opinion which interpreted state law to prohibit
prosecuting attorneys from carrying concealed weapons, even though some
prosecuting attorneys conducted their own investigations and faced
dangerous situations. This is a classic example of John Ashcroft
upholding the law even when he did not agree with it.
In short, John Ashcroft is a man of integrity and great ability. With
John Ashcroft as Attorney General, I am confident that the Justice
Department will enforce Federal gun laws with unprecedented zeal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, as many of my colleagues
have done, in support of my friend and our friend, Senator John
Ashcroft, to be Attorney General of the United States.
It is always interesting, as the distinguished Senator from
California has indicated, to look at people's views in a situation such
as this. And I must say that while I respect the Senator's views and
her comments, I guess what I will describe as allegations, I do have a
different view. This does not add up to the John Ashcroft I know as a
neighbor.
We have heard the debate. It has been considerable. We have all heard
the charge that Senator Ashcroft is somehow not fit to serve as
Attorney General. But that really does not square with the John
Ashcroft I know.
We in Kansas have watched our neighbor and observed his record for a
great number of years. We think we know this man. Again, I don't think
the record really squares with the charges and the allegations that
have been tossed about for the last several weeks.
As Missouri attorney general, John Ashcroft strictly enforced laws
that differed from his own beliefs. I repeat that. That seems to be the
crucial issue here. He strictly enforced laws that actually differed
from his own beliefs, including firearms--we have heard a lot of talk
about firearms--whether prosecuting attorneys could actually carry
concealed weapons; here is one on abortion and that dealt with the
confidentiality of hospital records on numbers of abortions that were
performed; whether a death certificate was legally required for fetuses
under 20 weeks; church and state; the availability of funds for private
and religious schools, and the distribution of religious materials in
public schools; quite a few environmental regulations; and also in
regard to affirmative action.
If Senator Ashcroft could not honestly enforce the law, wouldn't
somebody have documented such an instance by now in relation to these
laws he did enforce that involved strong beliefs with which he did not
agree? I don't think they have, despite the rhetoric.
I will talk a little bit about experience. John Ashcroft, regardless
of your view about his stance on the issues or his ideology or selected
quotes, is the most experienced Attorney General nominee in American
history. Boy, that is a strong statement, but consider the facts. Of
the 67 persons who have served in that office since the founding of the
Republic, only one, John Ashcroft, has served as State attorney
general--that is two terms--and Governor of his State--two terms--and
as a U.S. Senator with service on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
As Missouri AG, John Ashcroft was elected the president of the
National Association of Attorneys General. As Missouri Governor, he was
elected chairman of the National Governors' Association. If John
Ashcroft's execution of these earlier public trusts was as far ``out of
the mainstream'' as his critics now claim, wouldn't his fellow State
attorneys general or Governors, including Democrats, have noticed and
said something?
His colleagues universally admire his devotion to his faith. Mr.
Byrd, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, spoke to that
earlier today and made some excellent comments. Does that not imply he
is then a man of conscience, that he will do what he says he will do?
John Ashcroft himself said:
My primary personal belief is that the law is supreme; that
I don't place myself above the law, and I shouldn't place
myself above the law. So it would violate my beliefs to do
it.
He will enforce the law.
Perhaps the most serious of the charges against the Senator, our
former colleague, is that he is somehow--and I don't like to use this
term, but it has been bandied about--a racist because of his opposition
to Justice Ronnie White. I do not think, in knowing the man and in
looking at the record very carefully, there is any evidence of racial
bias in Senator Ashcroft's record.
Among other initiatives--and this has been said before on the floor,
and it deserves repeating--this is a man who signed Missouri's first
hate crimes statute into law. He signed into law the bill establishing
a Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday in Missouri. He appointed the first
African American woman to the Missouri Court of Appeals. He has been a
leader in opposition to racial profiling.
In my personal view, there were good reasons that Senator Ashcroft
opposed the White confirmation and that every Republican Senator then
voted no. Justice White, during his tenure on the Missouri Supreme
Court, was notable for his anti-death-penalty and procriminal bias,
which led to strong bipartisan opposition from the law enforcement
community to his lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.
[[Page S890]]
Let me point this out. More than 70 percent of all elected officials
in Missouri, including sheriffs, are Democrats; and 77 of the 114
Missouri sheriffs, including many Democrats, were on record in
unprecedented opposition to Justice White's confirmation. The Missouri
Federation of Police Chiefs and the National Sheriffs Association were
also against that confirmation. I voted no. I did not know at the time
when I cast that vote of Justice White's African American status. I
didn't know that. As a matter of fact, in talking with fellow
Republicans, many of us did not know that. John Ashcroft never
mentioned that. That wasn't the reason we opposed him.
Senator Ashcroft's opponents accuse him of being out of the
mainstream and in support of private ownership of firearms. They say
his support of firearms as a guard against government tyranny is ``talk
of a madman.'' I think we ought to look at the record.
As State attorney general and Governor, John Ashcroft conscientiously
enforced both State and Federal gun laws, even those with which he
disagreed. That again is the crucial issue. His record does contrast
sharply with the Clinton Justice Department's failure to enforce
existing Federal gun laws, even while calling for new ones.
The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted to preserve
a traditional right of the people as a guard against government
encroachment, and that point is beyond dispute. If John Ashcroft is ``a
madman'' or ``out of the mainstream,'' so were James Madison, Alexander
Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Abraham Lincoln, Hubert
Humphrey, and other notable Americans who held that same view.
Despite the harsh words being hurled in Washington about this
nomination, many in our Nation's heartland, in Kansas and Nebraska,
Oklahoma, Missouri, know, understand, have seen him up close and
personal as neighbors. We know he is an outstanding public servant and
will make an outstanding Attorney General.
Listen to what the Atlanta Journal and Constitution has to say about
this nomination:
Ashcroft is certainly conservative, and he is certainly
religious. But 88 percent of his fellow citizens report
that religion is important or very important in their
lives, a figure that has barely varied over the past 20
years. Seventy percent or more believe the nation would be
better off if it were more religious, and 79 percent favor
prayer or at least a moment of silence in the public
schools. So who's out of the mainstream?
Ashcroft strongly opposes abortion on moral grounds; 55
percent of the people say it is ``morally wrong most of the
time.'' The nominee would like to see sharp restrictions on
when an abortion would be legal; only 28 percent of Americans
think it should be legal under any circumstances. He
absolutely opposes partial-birth abortion; so do 66 percent
of Americans. Who are the extremists on this issue?
Actually, none of these attacks on Ashcroft's beliefs has
much real meaning because he has already demonstrated, as
Attorney General of Missouri, that he is perfectly capable of
following the law as it is, rather than as he might wish it
were.
Again, that is the basic point I make.
Maybe it is difficult for his opponents to believe that he
could so carefully separate his personal views from his task
as chief enforcer of the nation's laws because they have so
much trouble doing that themselves. But we believe he can and
will do so and that the American mainstream which was invoked
so frequently at his hearings will be well served and
satisfied with the job that he will do.
I certainly agree that America will be well served with Senator
Ashcroft's confirmation by the Senate. I intend to vote for him. I urge
my colleagues to do the same.
One other thing: John Ashcroft and I spent a little time together--3
days--up in the wilds of Alaska. We were up there at the invitation of
Senator Ted Stevens. There is a fishing contest up there. The Presiding
Officer is very skilled, by the way, in taking part in that whole
fishing contest. The proceeds are used to improve the habitat on the
Kenai River.
We had a great deal to say to each other, both Senator Ashcroft and
myself, when we were fishing in that kind of circumstance. We didn't
talk about anything that involved racism, or Bob Jones University, or
selected quotes, or whatever; we talked as individuals and as friends.
I did not hear a bitter or prejudicial word. We talked about what
things mean in life basically. We talked about family and of the Lord's
creation. We talked as fellow men. We talked about the privilege to
serve in the Senate. We told a lot of stories about human beings, we
talked a lot about fishing, and we talked a lot about friendship. I
think when we can spend time with a man in that kind of circumstance,
we really get to know him.
Personally, I just want to say I am having a lot of trouble figuring
out whom the critics are talking about in regard to the John Ashcroft I
know and respect. I think he will make a great Attorney General. And,
quite frankly, I think at the end of the day when he reaches out in an
act of friendship and trust across the aisle to many of his critics, we
are going to be just fine.
I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I gather that the order set is that Senator
Dodd will speak and then Senator Cochran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order at this point.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order be
as follows: That following Senator Dodd, Senator Cochran speak, and
that I be permitted to speak following Senator Cochran.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, at the outset I commend my
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the chairman of the committee,
Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat, and the
respective members of the committee for the manner in which they
conducted the confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General
of the United States and for the manner in which they treated John
Ashcroft, President Bush's nominee for this position.
It is a difficult job, particularly when the nomination is
controversial. I think the members of the Judiciary Committee, both
Republicans and Democrats, conducted themselves with great dignity, and
I commend them for it.
Mr. President, I am going to vote to confirm John Ashcroft as U.S.
Attorney General. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's
time to explain my reasons.
Let me say at the outset that I hope Mr. Ashcroft will listen to what
I have to say here this afternoon. My comments are delivered primarily
for the benefit of my colleagues and my constituents. But they are also
directed to John Ashcroft.
It is important that John Ashcroft understand that my support of his
nomination is not unqualified. It is given, rather, only upon extensive
reflection and despite concerns about what kind of Attorney General he
will make.
I have listened attentively to the comments of our colleagues both in
support of and in opposition to this nomination. I respect immensely
their views. I have considered the practices and precedents of the
Senate in deferring to presidential cabinet appointments. And I have
reflected upon my own practices over the past two decades in the Senate
in considering such appointments. During that time, I have supported an
overwhelming number of Cabinet nominees. But I have, on the rarest
occasions, opposed Cabinet nominees supported by the majority of
members of the Senate and by a majority of my own party. It also bears
mentioning that I have supported nominees opposed by most members of my
party and, in one instance, also opposed by a majority of the Senate.
My concerns about this particular nominee can be reduced to three in
particular:
First, whether he will uphold and vigorously enforce our laws--
especially those with which he personally disagrees.
Second, whether he will treat other people in public life as he
wishes to be treated--particularly those with whom he may disagree.
And third, whether he will seek to unify rather than divide our
nation on critical issues facing our nation, especially the issue of
racial justice.
Let me address these concerns in order.
First, as to John Ashcroft's disposition to enforce the law. The
Attorney General, as we all know, is our nation's
[[Page S891]]
primary law enforcement officer. This is an office of unique
importance.
Except perhaps for the president himself, no other individual can or
should do more to protect the public's safety, and to promote the ideal
of equal justice that is the North Star in our constellation of laws.
Like many others in public life, John Ashcroft is a man of strong
convictions. He should be commended, not faulted, for that fact. But
the question that arises with respect to his nomination for this
particular office is whether those convictions--on matters such as a
woman's right to choose and gun safety--might well preclude him from
enforcing laws on those and similar issues with which he may disagree.
This is a threshold question. If the nation's top law enforcement
officer cannot enforce the law, how can anyone say he should
nevertheless assume the office? If the public cannot know with
reasonable assurance that their Attorney General will uphold our laws
vigorously and free of personal bias, then how can we be confident that
respect for the law will not be weakened?
If minority Americans, women, and others cannot rely on the Attorney
General to safeguard their liberties, how can other--indeed, all--
Americans not worry that their rights might one day be placed at risk,
as well?
John Ashcroft has minced no words about his positions on issues like
a woman's right to choose and gun safety. He has advocated positions
contrary to current law. That is his record. It is also, I might add,
his right--just as any of us has the right to advocate legal change.
But that is far from saying that he cannot faithfully enforce the
law. There is more to his record that deserves consideration. This is a
man who was elected not once, but five times by a majority of the
people of his state--as their attorney general, governor, and Senator.
He has devoted nearly three decades of his life to public service. He
has, as far as anyone knows, upheld the public's trust throughout that
time.
If his nomination were to be decided on the basis of experience
alone, he would have been among the first, rather than the last, of the
President's Cabinet nominees to be considered by the Senate.
As Attorney General and Governor, the record suggests that he did, in
fact, uphold and advocate laws with which he disagreed. He endorsed
Democratic proposals to fund new roads and schools. He signed
legislation to increase the penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry.
He supported additional resources for legal services for the indigent.
During his confirmation hearing, he swore under oath that he would
uphold the law ``so help me God.'' He did so repeatedly and fervently.
He swore that he would respect Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v.
Casey as the law of the land. He swore to uphold the federal law that
prevents violence and intimidation at family planning clinics. He
testified that the Brady law and the assault weapons ban are
constitutional.
He also testified that mandatory trigger locks, gun licensing and gun
registration are all constitutional. And he vowed to hire without
regard to sexual preference (although he did not, I should add, pledge
to continue Attorney General Reno's policy of excluding sexual
preference from security clearance decisions).
I do not expect that John Ashcroft will change his views as Attorney
General. But I do, have every right to expect, based upon his
commitment to God Almighty, before the Judiciary Committee that he will
keep his word to uphold the laws of the land, even those with which he
profoundly disagrees.
Mr. President, I would love to have the complete and total assurance
he would do that. I cannot honestly conclude that he would not. Thus,
it compels me to give him the benefit of the doubt because he has taken
that oath fervently, before God Almighty, and members of the Senate
Judiciary Committee.
A second concern I have about Senator Ashcroft's nomination is how he
has treated other people. I refer very specifically to his conduct
toward Judge Ronnie White, Ambassador James Hormel, and Bill Lann Lee,
former head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division.
Other colleagues have spoken and will speak about these cases in
greater detail. Suffice it to say his treatment of their nominations
went beyond the bounds of good manners and common decency. Too often,
John Ashcroft refused to meet with these people; he failed to give them
an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and he distorted, in my
view, their records.
In the case of Mr. Hormel, he deemed the wholly private matter of
sexual orientation to be a factor ``eligible for consideration'' in
whether he ought to be nominated.
In the case of Judge White, he actively worked for his defeat--
without first giving him a chance to respond to misleading statements
made against him on the Senate floor.
His treatment of these men was cavalier at best--callous and
calculated at worst. It is particularly troubling because my own
limited experience with Senator Ashcroft was of a quite different
nature.
We worked together on only one issue that I recall--ending the
embargo on food and medicine to Cuba. In that effort, he took a
position that engendered considerable opposition in his own caucus. At
all times, I found him reasonable and trustworthy.
But there is nevertheless a record here of going after people in a
harsh and unfair manner. I have always been suspicious of people who
try to build a political career in part on the bones of their personal
adversaries. Attacking motives, using people as political scapegoats,
acting with reckless disregard to the reputations of others--these are
the kinds of actions that I find contemptible, and that unfortunately
have become all too common in public life today.
I hope John Ashcroft will change and turn away from such behavior in
the future. I believe that he can. As the saying goes, ``There is no
sinner without a future, and no saint without a past.'' I believe John
Ashcroft is a decent human being, and I take him at his word.
If his flaws loom large, it is at least in part because they have
been aired and examined in the magnifying light of public life.
And while I will not excuse these flaws--particularly in his
treatment of others as a public official--I will not engage in the same
form of pay-back politics that seems to have a growing currency in our
time. That is not to suggest that those who oppose him will have
engaged in such tactics. On the contrary, I can well understand the
principled basis of their opposition.
That said, I will not do to John Ashcroft what has been done to too
many people in recent years--including people like Ronnie White, James
Hormel, and Bill Lann Lee. These individuals do not deserve the
treatment they received. No one does. Not even John Ashcroft.
My third and final concern is closely related to the first: whether
his views on the critical domestic issues of our day would preclude him
from using his office not just to uphold the law, but to uphold the
spirit of freedom and equal justice that permeates every one of our
laws.
I find it not a little ironic that our new President, who calls
himself a ``uniter, not a divider'', nominated for Attorney General a
man who throughout his career has plunged so divisively into the most
divisive issues of our time: civil rights, women's rights, equal
rights, gun safety.
On a different level, I am not in the least surprised. The President
chose a nominee who reflects his own views on many of these same
issues. I did not expect him to nominate a Democrat.
Like nearly all of our colleagues, I have time and again supported
Cabinet and other nominees with whom I disagreed on critical issues.
Like them, I have a high degree of tolerance for differences of
opinions when such nominations come before us--including on such issues
as choice and guns. Indeed, I supported the nomination of Governor
Thompson as Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite our strong
differences on issues related to a woman's right to choose.
There are certain differences that, I would argue, none of us should
tolerate. And in that respect, the issue in John Ashcroft's public
record that concerns me the most is the issue of race.
If I thought John Ashcroft was a racist, I would oppose him as
strongly as
[[Page S892]]
I possibly could on any other issue I have ever faced in my 25 years of
public service. I urge each of our colleagues to do the same. We must
not tolerate intolerance. But I do not believe that such a potent word
applies to John Ashcroft. And it is lamentable, to say the least, that
some outside of the Senate have used it to describe him.
We of all people here in the Senate appreciate that words have
meaning. So when someone uses a word such as ``racist'' to describe
actions that, however objectionable, are not racist, then they reduce
the impact of that word at those moments when it is most applicable.
While by no means a path-breaker, as governor, John Ashcroft
appointed more African-American jurists to the bench than any of his
predecessors. He appointed a number of women, as well. His wife has
taught at Howard University, a predominantly black institution. People
of color testified in support of his nomination. Even Judge Ronnie
White--about whom I will say more in a moment--said that he does not
believe Senator Ashcroft's opposition to his nomination was racist in
nature.
In the Senate, he held a hearing on and condemned the practice of
racial profiling. He supported twenty-six judicial nominees of African-
American descent.
And it should not go unmentioned that at least one member of his
Senate staff--a devout Jew--has written that he found Senator Ashcroft
not only tolerant, but supportive of his religious beliefs and the
practical demands that those beliefs placed upon his time.
Nevertheless, I am deeply troubled by many of his actions in this
area. Most notably, he vehemently and persistently opposed efforts to
integrate the St. Louis public schools. In fact, his actions were so
vexatious that he was nearly cited for contempt for failing to comply
with court orders to submit a plan to desegregate the schools of that
fine city. He walked up to the line of disobeying the law--even
appearing to boast of that fact when he ran for Governor for the first
time. Those actions trouble me deeply.
The record suggests that in times past John Ashcroft has submitted to
the temptation to divide Americans along racial lines.
The same record also suggests that he is someone without personal
bias on matters of race, who has tried to heal rather than deepen our
nation's ancient racial wounds. I hope that it is that John Ashcroft
who, if confirmed, will lead the Department of Justice. Our nation has
traveled too far--and we have too far still to go--to relent for even a
moment in the struggle for equal justice.
I realize that my vote for John Ashcroft may not be decisive. But I
hope that it will be informative--informative most of all to John
Ashcroft. Listen well, John Ashcroft. There are those of us here today
who could easily vote against your confirmation, but have decided to
give you a second chance--an opportunity that you denied to Ronnie
White, Bill Lann Lee, James Hormel, and others.
I hope this vote will not be in vain. I hope that John Ashcroft will
uphold his pledge to enforce the laws of our land. I fervently hope
that he will work to unite rather than divide our nation. And I hope,
for the sake of our nation and this institution, that this vote will in
some small measure help bring about an end to the growing predilection
to treat nominations as ideological battlefields.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Senate
confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States.
He is well qualified for the job, having served as attorney general of
Missouri, as Governor of Missouri, and with distinction as United
States Senator.
I first met John Ashcroft in 1992 at the Missouri Republican
Convention in Springfield, MO, when I was a surrogate for the campaign
of President George Bush.
Two years later, John invited me and our colleague from New Mexico,
Pete Domenici, to come to Missouri and campaign with him when he was a
candidate for the Senate.
I was very impressed with John Ashcroft on both occasions. He was an
articulate and intelligent advocate for commonsense solutions to our
country's problems. He impressed me as a serious-minded, dedicated, and
energetic force in shaping public opinion on issues that should be
addressed by our Government.
I enjoyed very much being a part of his campaign effort and I was
delighted when he was elected to the Senate.
In the Senate he has been very active in the legislative process. He
has initiated reforms in trade sanctions policy and juvenile justice
which I have been pleased to support and cosponsor. He is one of the
most sincerely respected members of our Republican Conference, and I
consider him to be one of my best friends in the Senate.
I take issue with the critics who have questioned his candor and his
character. There is no basis whatsoever for those charges. I am
surprised and disappointed that he has been characterized so unfairly
by some in this body.
I am confident he will prove by his exemplary service as Attorney
General that he is fair minded, thoughtful, and true to his word, and
his oath, as he carries out his important duties.
The President has selected a good man to be Attorney General. He has
withstood the slings and arrows of his opponents, and he is still
standing.
When I was elected to Congress, I was given by my mother a poem by
Josiah Gilbert Holland, which I have kept close to my desk for the past
28 years. It says in part:
God give us men! A time like this demands
Strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands;
whom the lust of office does not kill;
whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
who possess opinions and a will;
who have honor;
who will not lie;
who can stand before a demagog and damn his treacherous
flatteries without winking!
Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog, in public
duty and in private thinking.
That poem describes my friend and fellow Senator, John Ashcroft. I am
proud of his service in the Senate, and I am confident he will make me
just as proud as he serves our Nation as Attorney General of the United
States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Under the previous order, the
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, contrary to what some people may believe,
thinking about how people make this choice and given some of the
arguments that have surfaced in the course of this nomination, I
suppose some people might think this is sort of automatic for some
folks on different sides of the aisle. I want to make clear that I do
not feel that way at all. I think there are many different
crosscurrents with respect to anybody's nomination, and I certainly do
not disagree with the comments of my good friend and colleague, Senator
Dodd, who spoke a few minutes ago about what has happened to the
nomination process, or to the review over the course of the last years
here in this city.
While I certainly raised questions early on with respect to this
nominee, I tried, in the course of this process, to refrain from making
any final judgments until the hearings were held, until questions were
asked, until Senator Ashcroft himself had an opportunity to lay out the
record, so to speak.
I listened very carefully to what Senator Dodd said a moment ago
about not making choices on ideology. I agree with that. My opposition,
which I announced yesterday, to Senator Ashcroft's nomination, is not
based on ideology. I might say, however, that our friends on the other
side of the aisle in the Republican Party have certainly made ideology
a significant component of their opposition to many people in the last
years. Even Senator Ashcroft himself has engaged in a process of making
judgments about people's fitness to be judges, people's fitness to be
in the Attorney General's office--Bill Lann Lee--on a matter of
ideology.
In fact, I am told by some members of their party that they,
themselves, have been the victims of ideological decisionmaking with
respect to positions they might or might not be able to fill within the
party itself. Perhaps there is the deepest irony at all, that people
such as Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, or Governor Keating, were
themselves the subject of bitter dissension within the Republican Party
over whether or not they might be fit to
[[Page S893]]
serve as Vice President of the United States, or hold some other office
of importance, on the basis of ideology.
So we need to be careful and thoughtful about who comes to that part
of this debate with clean hands. But I am confident that all of us
would agree with Senator Dodd, that we would like to see an end to that
kind of division.
There is another reason why this is difficult. It is because Senator
Ashcroft comes to this question with all the advantages of a colleague.
We know him. Many of us know him well enough to consider him a friend
in the context of the Senate and like him personally. We certainly
respect his conviction and his dedication to public service.
As colleagues have noted, he was elected by the citizens of his State
as attorney general, as Governor, and as Senator.
But the truth is, in the final analysis this is not a vote or a
decision about those personal relationships. This is not a vote about
personality. And it is certainly not a vote that calls on us to somehow
ratify the traditional expectations of the Senate, which are understood
by everyone in the Senate and often are found very confusing to many
people in the country who measure us and what we do by a different
standard.
The office of Attorney General is obviously not a political reward,
left simply to the victors of national elections or to the
crosscurrents of ideology within a particular party. It is one of the
most sensitive positions of public trust. It is an office in which all
Americans must have a deep and abiding faith that its occupant will
enforce the laws with equal justice, with fairness, and impartiality.
In other words, the person who comes to that office must come to it
with a level of acceptance by the public at large about their moral and
legal bonafides that they bring to the office in a way that is beyond
dispute.
It is very clear that there were others whom a uniting, not a
dividing, President might have chosen for this job. I think everyone in
the Senate would agree that if our colleague, former Senator John
Danforth, had been chosen, you would have had a person who espoused all
the ideology, the full measure of conservative views--he is an
Episcopalian minister; he is pro- life--but he would have brought
absolutely none of the controversy that has come with this nominee,
which raises doubts--I am not saying certainties but doubts--in the
minds of many people about this nominee's either willingness or
capacity to apply the law in the way he has suggested he would in the
course of these hearings.
In fact, after closely examining the record set forth in those
hearings, and the record as attorney general of the State of Missouri,
I conclude that record makes him the wrong person for this job at this
time.
This is, without any question--I think everybody in the Senate would
agree--a special time in our history. We have a President of the United
States who was elected not with the popular vote of the country but for
the third time in history by the electoral college. We have a President
who was elected effectively by one vote, some would argue by the one
vote in the electoral college, but there are many others in the country
who would argue it was the one vote in the Supreme Court of the United
States. There are many in the country, whether legitimately or not, who
have a deep sense of alienation and outrage over what happened in the
application of law in the course of the last months in our Nation.
Because this election was so divisive, because the President himself
has come to office saying that he acknowledges the deep need for him to
be a unifier and not a divider, I believe, therefore, this nomination
is particularly troubling.
Senator Ashcroft's record reveals a series of actions--not beliefs; I
want to distinguish this. I heard colleagues defending Senator Ashcroft
again and again saying he should not be held accountable for his deep-
rooted beliefs that reflect those who elected him. I am not holding him
accountable, per se, for those beliefs. I believe, however, there are a
series of actions that ignore the kind of need we face at this point in
time to have an Attorney General come to office not needing to prove
that the years in the past were somehow an aberration or a mistaken
impression but, rather, who brings the full force of their history of
commitment to civil rights, a commitment to a series of issues that are
the law of the land.
In effect, we are being asked to accept the nomination of an
individual who, by definition, will have to wake up every single
morning and curb his natural political instincts in order to do this
job. I do not think that is an unfair statement because on all of those
key issues where the Attorney General is so critical, whether it is
guns or the law of the land with respect to Roe v. Wade, women's
choice, or the law of the land with respect to civil rights in many
areas, Senator Ashcroft again and again in his political life has been
on the other side of those particular issues.
There is a very simple question to ask yourself: Is that really what
you want in an Attorney General of the United States?
In my judgment, reviewing the record of the hearings and reviewing
the record of Senator Ashcroft's stewardship as Attorney General, there
are occasions where the Senator took actions that do not call to
question today his ideology but call to question his judgment in
pursuit of that ideology.
Yes, Senator Ashcroft testified that he would enforce the laws with
which he disagrees. But take, for instance, the voluntary school
desegregation case in St. Louis, or the nomination of Judge Ronnie
White, or the nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to
Luxembourg, or the nomination of David Satcher for Surgeon General.
Each of these, in my estimation, reveals a response by Senator Ashcroft
that exhibited an exercise of judgment that I believe calls into
question his ability to provide for the kind of moral and legal force
necessary in the job of Attorney General.
I am not convinced that you can simply dismiss each and every one of
the instincts that led to the exercise of that judgment in each of
those cases. Let me be very specific about each and every one of those.
When he was Missouri attorney general, as we know--others have talked
about it--Senator Ashcroft opposed the court-appointed voluntary
desegregation plan for St. Louis. We know school desegregation is a
controversial public policy, and there are many people who
appropriately at various times in the country, in one place or the
other, found fault with certain approaches to various voluntary
desegregation plans. That is not the measure of my concern.
What is deeply troubling to me is that despite the problems with the
existing law and despite the problems that were found with the proposed
voluntary remedy, Senator Ashcroft, in a position of leadership on this
issue, duty bound to bring people together and to try to lead the
community through this difficult time, failed to come up with an
alternative that would have ameliorated the divisions of the community
and, most importantly, would have addressed the segregated conditions.
When children are trapped in schools that do not work, when cities are
divided by racial lines, there is a choice that can be made: You can be
a voice for reconciliation or you can be a voice for division.
When Senator Ashcroft chose to politicize the issue beyond all
proportion, which is what many people in the community have testified,
he chose the latter, and that is a matter of judgment, not belief.
Perhaps the most disturbing element in his record was the treatment
of Judge Ronnie White. Many people have brought those facts to the
floor, and I obviously am not going to go through all of them again. I
remember that debate well. I remember the language which characterized
this good person. He was called procriminal. It was said that he had a
tremendous bent towards criminal activity--a judge had a tremendous
bent toward criminal activity. It was claimed that he was the court's
most liberal judge on the death penalty and did not care ``how clear
the evidence of guilt.''
That is not true. Those words are simply not true. Of course he cared
about guilt, and if you read his decision, his decision said nothing
about whether or not he was not guilty or whether or not he should not,
if guilty, be subjected to the death penalty. He did not think this man
had a fair trial.
I do not believe an Attorney General of the United States should
interpret
[[Page S894]]
some judge's opposition to the lack of a fair trial to become on the
floor of the Senate a rationale for a party-line vote, fully divided by
virtue of his leadership on his protestations and characterizations of
this judge.
As is now well known, Judge White had a strong record of supporting
capital punishment and often voted with Mr. Ashcroft's own appointees
on the Missouri Supreme Court. Indeed, he had a tougher record on the
death penalty than some of Senator Ashcroft's own nominees. Judge White
voted for the death penalty in 41 of 59 cases that came before him, and
he voted with the majority 53 times, including cases in which he
favored reversal.
So that is not an issue of ideology. That is not a matter of belief
on which I choose to cast my vote. It is because I believe that Judge
White was inappropriately characterized on the floor of the Senate. I
believe that was a reflection of a judgment about another human being,
about our politics, about life in our country. I do not believe, as
some have claimed, at all--and I hope we would never insinuate--that
Senator Ashcroft is racist. I do not think there is any evidence of
that. I do not believe that he is. I think that is inappropriate to
this debate. But I do think that it was an unfair distortion of Judge
White's record branding him as procriminal. And the handling of that
nomination in itself raises serious questions about judgment, about
fairmindedness, and about fair play.
Judge White, quite eloquently, made that very point during his
testimony before the Judiciary Committee when he said: I believe that
the question for the Senate is whether these misrepresentations are
consistent with fair play and justice that you would require of the
U.S. Attorney General. That is not a matter of ideology; that is a
matter of judgment.
I am also troubled that when David Satcher's nomination for Surgeon
General came before the Senate with great bipartisan support, again,
Senator Ashcroft filibustered and described him as a ``promoter of
partial-birth abortion.''
David Satcher had led the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta with
distinction. He had been a leader at a medical college in Tennessee. He
had the full backing of Senator Frist and Senator Thompson, both of
whom are people of enormous integrity. They told us that David Satcher
would not promote abortion. They told us that you could not question
his character or his integrity. But John Ashcroft said that this
individual would ``promote a heinous act, partial-birth abortion.''
Why? Simply because David Satcher believed that a ban on the procedure
--which he was in favor of--ought to include an exception for the life
and health of the mother.
The kind of distortion we saw for David Satcher raises a question,
not about ideology but about judgment and fairness and fair play.
I am also troubled by Senator Ashcroft's judgment about the so-called
alleged ``totality of the record'' with respect to a good man named
James Hormel. I regret to say it, but I can only interpret the
``totality of the record'' as a code word for opposition to James
Hormel because he was gay.
Why do I draw that conclusion? Because in the course of debate, and
in the course of comments publicly, Senator Ashcroft, at the Foreign
Relations Committee, never doubted that Mr. Hormel was a competent
businessperson, never doubted or questioned his record of philanthropy
or commitment to his community, never doubted or questioned his
effectiveness as a dean, or the job he had done prior to entering the
business at the University of Chicago. Senator Ashcroft was only one of
two people on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against him.
During the confirmation hearings a couple weeks ago, he again
reiterated it was the ``totality of the record'' but, once again,
without any explanation.
As we know, Mr. Hormel was finally appointed by a recess appointment.
But in my judgment, Mr. Hormel was opposed for a status offense.
Senator Ashcroft did raise questions about the propensity or likelihood
Mr. Hormel might have about ``promoting a certain kind of lifestyle.''
I think every single one of us understands that is a code word in and
of itself for his sexuality.
I would add that the people of Luxembourg, far from raising this
question themselves, did not share that concern. And so it was that
Senator Ashcroft sought to deny Luxembourg an Ambassador that they were
asking to have appointed.
I do not believe the American people should have an Attorney General
who leaves even doubts--even doubts--about whether or not being gay is
a status offense.
I am also troubled by the lack of sensitivity that was displayed,
even in the aftermath of the interview that took place with Southern
Partisan magazine in 1998. Another colleague has gone into that at
great depth on the floor, and I will not spend a lot of time on it.
It is one thing to have done the interview and, I suppose, to have
suggested later that you did not know what the magazine did or who they
spoke to or what audience they talked about. It is another thing when
you are a nominee for Attorney General not to acknowledge that there
are, indeed, questions that would arise in an interview of this nature
with that kind of magazine.
This is a magazine that praises John Wilkes Booth for assassinating
Abraham Lincoln. It has editorials against interracial dating. When you
read the interview itself, and you recognize the folks the Senator was
trying to talk to, and what he was appealing to, it seems to me that
there are serious questions, again, about judgment, about the judgment
of what the message is to a large part of America who sees that
magazine and those who adhere to its philosophy as those who have never
gotten over the fact that slavery was ended in the South.
I would have liked--I think many of us would have liked--to at least
have heard a disavowal of those views or an expression, recognition
that some of the views are, in fact, inappropriate and appeal to some
people's worst instincts rather than best instincts.
I think those are the kinds of expressions that ought to come from
somebody who is going to try to represent the healing of the divisions
that have occurred over the course of the last years. I might add, they
are not just the healings from the difficulties of the election. They
are the healings from the problems of racial profiling. They are the
healings from the problems of discrimination in housing. They are the
healings from the problems of so many people of color who wind up in
prison instead of in college. They are the divisions that occur because
so many in this country still believe that the law is stacked against
them rather than working for them.
The choices that an Attorney General will make are obviously critical
to our ability to move forward and not backward with respect to those
kinds of divisions. It is these particular acts of personal judgment
that I believe raise the most serious questions about the
appropriateness of Senator Ashcroft assuming this remarkably sensitive
position.
As a former prosecutor--I see Senator Reid is on the floor; and he
shares that prior occupation--I think for many of us there is an acute
sensitivity to the judgments that an Attorney General makes on a daily
basis: what cases will be taken on; what particular task forces might
be created in order to try to address people's sense of grievance in
the country; certainly, obviously, the power of the Solicitor General;
the power of choosing who will sit on what courts; the power of
deciding what you will appeal to the Supreme Court of the United
States; and, most importantly, what you will investigate and how. All
of these are issues of judgment, too.
I believe the issues I have raised put before the Senate serious
questions about the exercise in that judgment. I believe that in the
end, notwithstanding what I have said, there is always a feeling by
each of us with respect to a colleague that these votes are difficult.
I don't pretend that it is not in this regard. That is true for all of
us on our side. We have to make a choice. It is our responsibility and
it is our oath to the Constitution to make the best judgments we can
about the choices that are put in front of us.
I believe the important thing at this moment in time in this
particular position, above all, is to have a nominee who is free from
this kind of controversy, who comes to this job not with the questions
that have been raised in the Senate and this revisitation of the kind
of divisiveness that so
[[Page S895]]
many of us are tired of. That is not something we asked for. That is
something we were given by virtue of the President's choice to send us
this nominee.
With this nominee comes these questions about his ability to assume
this job that requires such a special sensitivity, such a special sense
of the need to bring the country together and to be able to apply the
law equally and fairly to all.
It may well be that every concern I have expressed is wiped away when
John Ashcroft takes this job on, as we know he will. There is no
question about whether he is going to be confirmed. But there is a
question about whether or not we will ever, in the next few years,
again have to revisit some of the questions that have been raised in
the course of these hearings and in the course of this debate.
My prayer is that we won't, and nothing, obviously, would please me
more than to say to John Ashcroft: I am glad I sounded my warning
bells, but I am equally glad that you proved us wrong and were the kind
of Attorney General that the country needed at this moment.
It may well be that all of our colleagues are absolutely correct in
predicting that that is what we will have. If it is, so much the better
for the Nation and so much the better for John Ashcroft. It is
important for us to place as part of the record, as he assumes this
job, the concerns that we have on behalf of so many people in this
country who need to see the law applied more fairly and need to have a
better sense of due process and of equal justice under the law. I hope,
in the end, this administration and this Attorney General will produce
that.
Mr. HATCH. Finally, Mr. President, I wish to speak about John
Ashcroft's ability, if and when he becomes Attorney General, to enforce
laws that he spoke against or even voted against as a legislator.
As you know, Mr. President, opponents of Senator Ashcroft are
accusing him of being unable to set aside his opinions on certain laws
sufficiently in order to enforce those laws.
And I have to give those opponents credit for their creativity. They
have developed a brand new test for cabinet appointees. Eight years
ago, when the Senate unanimously confirmed an Attorney General whose
personal views opposed the death penalty and the imposition of
mandatory minimum sentences for convicted criminals, none of the anti-
Ashcroft crusaders accused Janet Reno of being unable to set aside her
personal views.
But while I admire the creativity of this new approach, I am deeply
troubled by the substance beneath it. What's being proposed is to
disqualify from high office anyone who has previously taken a side on a
legislative proposal.
It is simply not true that a legislator is so tainted by efforts to
change laws that thereafter he or she cannot perform the duties of
attorney general. Outside this Chamber, and outside of the Washington
Beltway, Americans understand that people can take on different roles
and responsibilities when they are given different positions. Americans
know that lawyers can become judges, welders can become foremen,
engineers can become managers, and school teachers can become school
board leaders. And Americans know that a Senator, whose job is to
propose and vote on new laws, can become an Attorney General, whose job
is to enforce those laws that are duly passed.
There aren't many people who know as much about the different roles
in government as John Ashcroft. He has been in the executive branch--as
an Attorney General for 8 years. He has been chief executive as
Governor for 8 years. And he has been in the legislative branch as a
United States Senator for 6 years. Each of these positions have
required an understanding of the differing roles assumed by the three
branches of government.
It is in this context that John Ashcroft told the Senate what he will
do as Attorney General. He said he will enforce the laws as written,
and uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This
is a concise yet profound statement about the proper role of the
Attorney General. And it is more than just a statement, because it is
backed up by the unquestioned integrity of John Ashcroft, a man who
will do what he says. He will enforce the law as it is written, even in
those instances where he would have written it differently.
Still, some members of this body are unconvinced. They apparently
think that John Ashcroft will not do what he said. Of course they would
not call him a liar--at least not explicitly, anyway. They are saying
that, try as he might, he simply cannot enforce the law because he
wants so badly for the law to say something other than what it actually
says.
Some who have adopted this view are accusing John Ashcroft of
changing his views. They accuse him of having a ``confirmation
conversion.'' By this they mean that people who take off their
legislator's cap, and put on an attorney general's hat, cannot adapt
from the role of law writer to law enforcer without being insincere.
This is a ludicrous proposition. John Ashcroft has not undergone a
confirmation conversion; he has been the victim of an interest group
illusion.
Members of this body know something that the public may not: There is
an unspoken rule that a nominee does not answer questions in public
between their nomination and their confirmation hearing. This is done
out of respect for the Senate--whose job it is, after all, to listen to
the nominee rather than the media. But savvy special interest groups
take advantage of the time in between to wage a war of words against
nominees they dislike. Many of those words are exaggerated or
unsubstantiated attacks. The result can be the fabrication of a false
public record.
Mr. President, I am asking my fellow Senators to resist the
temptation to label it a ``conversion'' when a nominee simply corrects
the misperceptions created by special interest groups. I am asking my
colleagues to look at John Ashcroft's real record, and at own words--in
his confirmation hearings, and in his answers to the voluminous written
questions--rather than relying on the press releases of issue
advocates.
If you only listen to interest groups, you might conclude that John
Ashcroft would bend or ignore the law in order to put more guns in
people's hands. But you would be wrong. As Missouri's Attorney General
in 1977, John Ashcroft wrote Attorney General Opinion No. 50, in which
he interpreted state law to prohibit prosecuting attorneys from
carrying concealed weapons even while engaged in the discharge of
official duties. This is hardly the kind of decision that someone bent
on eliminating gun laws would want to reach.
The special interest groups also want us to believe that John
Ashcroft cannot enforce abortion laws because of his personal view that
life begins at conception. But 20 years ago, as Missouri Attorney
General, John Ashcroft had--and did not take--the opportunity to bend
the law to favor his view. His 1981 Attorney General Opinion No. 5
barred the Missouri Division of Health from releasing statistics
revealing the number of abortions performed by particular hospitals--
even though such statistics would help the pro-life movement make its
case. Similarly, in Attorney General Opinion No. 127, dated September
23, 1980, Attorney General Ashcroft determined that a death certificate
was not required for all abortions, despite his personal view that
abortion terminates human life. Are these the kind of decisions that
you would expect from an unrestrainable zealot?
But the special interest groups do not stop there. They have also
attacked John Ashcroft for his religious views, inferring that he would
use his position to blur the lines between church and state. The fact
is, however, that John Ashcroft has turned down several opportunities
to do just that. In a 1977 Attorney General Opinion, No. 102, Ashcroft
forbade public school districts from using federal education funds to
benefit nonpublic including parochial school children. He did so even
though the federal grant in question specifically allowed private and
parochial school children to benefit. In similar decisions, Attorney
General Ashcroft prevented the State of Missouri from providing
transportation for nonpublic school students [Attorney General Opinion
No. 148], and determined that a board of education lacked legal
authority to allow the distribution of religious material on school
property [Attorney General Opinion
[[Page S896]]
No. 8, February 8, 1979]. Don't expect to see these decisions listed in
the press releases concerning John Ashcroft's ``extremist views.''
Another area of falsification concerns John Ashcroft's record on the
enforcement of environmental laws. To hear some interest groups talk,
you would think John Ashcroft wants to allow polluters to ignore the
regulations that protect the planet. Again, his record shows the
opposite. In Attorney General Opinion No. 123-84, Ashcroft declared
that underground injection wells constitute pollution of the waters and
are therefore subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources. He also opined that it would be unlawful to build or
operate such a well without a permit from the Clean Water Commission.
And in another opinion, Ashcroft decided that operators of surface
mines must obtain a permit for each year that the mine was unreclaimed.
In reaching this opinion, Ashcroft concluded that a continuous permit
requirement facilitated Missouri's intention ``to protect and promote
the health, safety and general welfare of the people of this state, and
to protect the natural resources of the state from environmental
harm.'' This settlement was echoed in an opinion concerning recycling
that John Ashcroft wrote in 1977. In Attorney General Opinion No. 189,
Ashcroft decided that Missouri's cities and counties could require that
all solid waste be disposed of at approved solid waste recovery
facilities, rather than landfills. That opinion was based on the
arguments that ``recycling of solid wastes results in fewer health
hazards and pollution problems than does disposal of the same types of
wastes in landfills'' and that ``public welfare is better served by
burning solid wastes for generation of electricity, thus conserving
scarce natural resources.'' I suggest, Mr. President, that these are
not the words of a man who is intent on ignoring the law and destroying
the environment.
My final example, Mr. President, is on the topic of minority set
asides. As you know, among the tactics of the anti-Ashcroft forces has
been to bring baseless racial allegations. And, again, this is being
done in indirect and subtle ways, implying that there is something
hidden and unrestrainable about John Ashcroft that should concern
minorities. Thus my colleagues will be pleased to learn that, as
Missouri's Attorney General, John Ashcroft issued an opinion which
cleared the way for the Missouri Clean Water Commission to award a 15
percent state grant to the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District to
establish a minority business enterprise program.
These examples--all of which pre-date the public smear campaign
against John Ashcroft--demonstrate that Mr. Ashcroft has a record of
enforcing the law. John Ashcroft has not undergone a confirmation
conversion. Rather, he is a victim of interest group illusion. The
artists behind the lobbying groups aligned against him have made his
true record disappear in a cloud of smoke. And they are attempting to
convince the public that his distinguished record of advocacy as a
legislator is a straitjacket from which he cannot escape. But let me
tell you what I see in the crystal ball. John Ashcroft is going to be
an excellent attorney general. He is going to enforce the laws of this
land fairly and forcefully. He will do so even when he might have
written the law differently as a legislator.
Mr. President, the issues that have been raised in objection to
Senator Ashcroft's nomination are largely policy issues. There is no
objection on his qualifications, his credentials, or his integrity. The
attempt to paint him as extremist on policy grounds is countered
effectively by his five elections to statewide office in Missouri, and
his elections to head the National Association of Governors and the
National Association of Attorneys General.
Mr. President, John Ashcroft is qualified, not extreme on policy, but
his policy positions are largely irrelevant because he has demonstrated
that he understands his role as law enforcer, as distinguished from
that of a policy advocate.
I hope we will give him the benefit of the doubt if any doubt exists.
I believe he will enforce the laws even-handedly and be a fine Attorney
General.
Mr. President, I would also like to respond to the issue of whether
there have been religious attacks on Senator Ashcroft.
Article VI of our Constitution, while requiring that Officers of the
government swear to support the Constitution, assures us that ``no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.'' I fear that with regard to
the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United
States, we are coming very close to violating the spirit, if not the
letter of that assurance.
Mr. President, John Ashcroft has been attacked as a dangerous zealot
by many of his opponents, who suggest that his faith will require him
to violate the law, or as a liar who cannot be trusted when he says he
will uphold the law, even when he disagrees with it, as he has in
similar circumstances in the past.
I think the corrosive attacks on a qualified nominee because of his
religious beliefs not only weakens our constitutional government, but
also undermines the ability of citizens in our democracy to engage in a
meaningful dialog with each other. When such attacks are made on the
ground that a man's faithful conviction will prevent him from
discharging the duties of his office, whole segments of our democracy
are disenfranchised, and the American heritage of religious tolerance
is betrayed.
Let me point to just a few instances of these amazing attacks on
Senator Ashcroft, made on largely religious grounds, since he was
nominated.
Let me begin with the testimony of Professor James M. Dunn, who
testified at our Senate hearings as an expert on religion issues. I
begin here because Professor Dunn is the most explicit in his religious
attack on Senator Ashcroft.
Professor Dunn says explicitly what others have coyly and carefully
implied. He says, and I quote what is essentially the thesis statement
of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: ``the long history of
Senator Ashcroft's identification with and approval of the political
agenda of religious, right-wing extremism in this country convinces me
that he is utterly unqualified and must be assumed to be unreliable for
such a trust.''
Let me quote that point again, ``the long history of Senator
Ashcroft's identification with and approval of . . . religious, right-
wing extremism in this country convinces [Professor Dunn] that he is
utterly unqualified and must be assumed unreliable for such a trust.''
That is about as baldly as the matter can be put, John Ashcroft is
``utterly unqualified'' and ``unreliable'' because of his ``religious,
right-wing extremism.''
As if the name-calling were not enough, to make this an even more
stunning assertion, the case Professor Dunn offers to prove this
perceived ``extremism'' is that John Ashcroft was the ``principal
architect'' of the so-called ``charitable choice'' legislation which
was passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.
To suggest that duly passed legislation, adopted by two branches of
government controlled by different political parties is outside the
mainstream is simply ludicrous, and suggests that the one outside the
mainstream is not Senator Ashcroft, but rather his critics. This is a
point that could be made on a number of policy fronts.
Well, I am disappointed when policy disagreements deteriorate into
name-calling, but considering the source I am particularly
disappointed. I would hope that the United States Senate would never
countenance such attacks in the consideration of this, or any other,
nominee. I hope no weight will be given to such intemperate vitriol,
nor more guarded attacks made in the same spirit. And I hope that none
of my colleagues would join in such attacks, whether explicitly stated
or couched in more careful language.
But I am glad that at least Professor Dunn's clear statement can put
to rest the question of whether Senator Ashcroft is being attacked in
part on his religious beliefs. Dunn is not alone, either. For example,
Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in
attacking Senator Ashcroft's nomination also cites charitable choice--
again, a law adopted by two branches of government controlled by two
different parties--as an
[[Page S897]]
instance of Ashcroft's ``extreme views.'' And to underscore the broader
point, Lynn points to the apparently decisive fact that ``Religious
Right leaders find Ashcroft's fundamentalist Christian world view and
his far-right political outlook appealing.'' Let us be clear here: the
charge is guilt by association with religious people.
As a number of my colleagues have suggested that the nominee might
want to apologize for some of his associations or take the opportunity
to dissociate himself from them, I would invite my colleagues to show a
similar indignation for these attacks on people of faith, and
dissociate themselves from these intolerant statements, unless they too
would like their silence to be considered approval of such intolerance.
Perhaps there needs to be greater sensitivity shown here.
In addition to such explicit attacks, others attack Senator Ashcroft
because his religious beliefs can be viewed as diverging from the legal
results favored by far left liberal interest groups.
For example, in the area of abortion, Ms. Gloria Feldt, the president
of Planned Parenthood Federation of America criticized Senator Ashcroft
for ``his belief that personhood begins at fertilization,'' saying that
his view is ``one of the most extreme positions among those who oppose
a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, John Ashcroft
actually believes that personhood begins . . . at the moment that sperm
meets egg, the moment of fertilization.'' Well, call it extreme if you
will--that word is a hobby horse of the far left liberal groups who
oppose this nominee--but I understand that is the position of a number
of churches, including the Catholic church. What is striking and
chilling about this attack is the implication that anyone who holds
this belief, including believing members of many churches, including
the millions of believing Catholics, are unfit for the office of
Attorney General because of their ``extreme positions.'' Surely, the
Senate cannot take the position that faithful Americans who adhere to
the pro-life doctrines of their churches, or even those who are pro-
life on secular grounds, are unfit for office because of this view.
Besides undermining our basic assumptions supporting the rule of law,
this critique leads to a second, and more chilling result for religious
tolerance, namely that of Senator's judging a nominee on the basis of
their views of the nominee's religious faith and that faith's
priorities. John Ashcroft responds to those who criticize him for his
beliefs about abortion and the beginning of life, for example, by
stating that his religion requires him to follow the law as written
when he is filling an enforcement role, and his oath to do that will be
binding on him. Those who challenge his veracity on this point are
picking and choosing which of Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs they
feel are genuine or which religious principle has priority for him. I
think this moves dangerously close to the line of imposing a religious
test on a nominee.
Perhaps we can ask a nominee the general question whether there is
anything that would keep them from fulfilling their duties, but I do
not think it appropriate to assume that someone is unfit for a job
because we have preconceptions about what their sect believes and then
criticize them if their answers do not fit our preconceptions of what
they should believe. We need to tread very carefully here. And we would
do well in such matters to give the benefit of the doubt to the
nominee. We have certainly given the benefit of the doubt to the last
President when we had qualms about the quality or credentials of some
of his nominees, or their policy positions. But we owe a special duty
to resolve doubts in favor of a nominee when questions stem from our
assumptions about a nominee's religious beliefs, especially in the face
of the nominee's contradiction of our assumptions.
Mr. President, I think we would all do well to remember what we know
about John Ashcroft, and not be influenced by a caricature painted by
those extreme groups whose distortions of this honorable man are driven
largely by their own narrow political interests. We know John Ashcroft
is the sort of person whose word is his bond. And if his religion is
relevant, it speaks for him as a person who will discharge the office
of Attorney General with honor and dignity, with impartiality,
according to the law.
I think if we examine our hearts, we will find nothing that
disqualifies John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. And we cannot, in
good conscience, say that all those Americans who believe as he does
are outside the mainstream of American opinion. No, they are solidly
within the history of American pluralism and freedom, including
religious freedom. We know John Ashcroft will faithfully discharge his
duties and honor his oath of office no matter what the liberal pressure
groups assert. I hope we will similarly honor our oaths, rejecting what
has become in essence a religious test for this nominee, and vote to
confirm this honorable man to the post of Attorney General.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak
now. He has indicated he will take about 10 minutes. Following that, I
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak and, following that,
Senator Kennedy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise in support of John Ashcroft in
his nomination as our Nation's Attorney General.
This nomination debate and the consideration of John Ashcroft's
nomination is much different for me than my consideration of all the
other nominees to President Bush's Cabinet. It is different for the
reason that in the case of most other nominees, I do not know those
individuals personally. Of course, I did know Senator Abraham who
served well with us and has now been confirmed as our Nation's Energy
Secretary. But with the exception of Senators Abraham and Ashcroft,
most of the nominees come to me just from what I have heard, what I
have seen in the newspapers, what others have written about those
people. I do not have the personal experience that I have had in the
case of John Ashcroft.
I knew John Ashcroft before I joined the Senate over 2 years ago. I
got to know him a little bit during the time I was running for Senator
from Illinois. Then, of course, once I was sworn into office, I had the
privilege of working with John Ashcroft on a regular basis. I worked
with him for 2 years side by side, sometimes day in and day out.
My State of Illinois is right next door to the State of Missouri, so
perhaps I have had the privilege of getting to know John Ashcroft and
working with him more closely than many of the other Members of this
body.
We, of course, have many issues that Illinois and Missouri share in
common. We have a similar agricultural economy where corn and beans are
the prevailing crop. We also have the Mississippi River that divides
our two States. We are frequently working together on issues of concern
to the Mississippi River. We also share the Greater St. Louis
metropolitan region. Most of that region is in John's State
of Missouri, but a large portion of it, maybe 20 percent of it,
actually is across in the eastern part of the Mississippi River and in
my State of Illinois. We were constantly discussing issues of job
creation and economic opportunities in the Greater St. Louis region.
In addition, I had the opportunity to work closely with John insofar
as he was a supporter of a bill that I sponsored last year to improve
the standards on child safety seats in this country. The bill went
through the Senate Commerce Committee. In fact, I believe John was
chairman of the subcommittee in which that issue was first taken up.
I also worked very closely with Senator Ashcroft on the issue of
sanction reform. Both John and I and many others, representing
particularly midwestern States, were very concerned that some of the
sanctions our Government put on other countries, banning the sale of
products from our country to other countries around the world that may
have bad records in one regard or another, were hurting people that
they were not intended to hurt and were not affecting the governments.
At the same time, they were shooting our own farmers in the foot.
I supported John's efforts to lift the sanctions with respect to food
and medicine that our country had placed
[[Page S898]]
on a number of nations around the world.
There are many other issues. In fact, my staff gave me two pages of
issues that I worked very closely on with John Ashcroft. I am not going
to go through and rebut one by one all the little points that have been
made. In fact, I think many people have already done a good job
rebutting some of the disinformation that has been put out. I think
Senator Ashcroft did an outstanding job defending his own record before
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Of the people I have known over the course of my public life, I would
have to tell my colleagues that John Ashcroft has few equals in terms
of character and integrity. John Ashcroft is a man of utmost character
and integrity--as much, if not more so, than anyone else I have ever
met in public life.
When I heard that President Bush had nominated John Ashcroft to be
Attorney General, I knew that I had disagreed with John Ashcroft on
many issues during the course of the last 2 years. I had voted
differently than he on any number of issues, maybe some of which have
been used as an argument against John Ashcroft. But I thought: Thank
God that President Bush has had the wisdom to put someone who is
absolutely unimpeachable, irreproachable, and an absolute straight
arrow in that office of Attorney General.
I believe character and integrity are, hands down, the most important
qualifications for that job and, indeed, just about any job in public
life. Many people have raised the question, Will John Ashcroft enforce
the laws? Clearly, there are many laws on the books that he would not
have voted for and did not vote for, or, if they came up again, would
not vote for. There are many laws on the books that many of us would
not have voted for.
But when the question comes up about John Ashcroft enforcing the
laws, the thought that has gone through my head is, I know John
Ashcroft well enough to believe with wholehearted confidence that if
John Ashcroft says he will enforce the laws, he will enforce the laws.
He is so stellar, so 24-carat is his honor and integrity, that I
believe him without question.
One of the other things that really has not been discussed or brought
up in adequate defense of John Ashcroft--as bright as all my colleagues
are in this illustrious body, the Senate, so many of whom are brilliant
and had brilliant academic careers--is that I have to say John Ashcroft
is one of the brightest and most articulate public servants with whom I
ever had the privilege of serving. I think you can see that if you look
at his early career and his undergraduate degree from Yale. He attended
the University of Chicago Law School, a renowned institution in my home
State. And many people do not even know that this man, who has spent
most of his life in public office in so many different elected posts in
the State of Missouri, was in fact a coauthor, I believe, with his wife
of a business law textbook. It is hard to imagine when he found the
time to do that. But so brilliant, so talented, and hard-working is
John that he has a remarkable degree of accomplishment in academics, in
public service, and in music and other areas. He is a wonderful,
outstanding man.
Finally, without belaboring this subject on which I think the points
and counterpoints have been made now thoroughly on both sides of the
aisle, the final thought with which I would like to leave the Senate is
that the attacks that have been made on John Ashcroft simply don't
compute with the John Ashcroft from my neighboring State whom I knew
and served with day in and day out for 2 years.
I don't think even the people of Missouri would recognize the
characterizations of this man whom they elected to be their attorney
general, their Governor, and their Senator and who has had such a long
and distinguished career. And even before he was an elected officer, he
was the State auditor of the State of Missouri. He is one of the most
qualified people ever to be nominated for the office of Attorney
General.
I urge my colleagues, some of them who may disagree with votes John
Ashcroft may have taken in his many years in the Senate, to reconsider
and think about how important is his character and integrity, and just
the fact that we can all sleep well at night knowing we have an
absolute straight arrow in the highest law enforcement position in this
country.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that beginning at 9
a.m. on Thursday, the Senate resume the Ashcroft nomination in
executive session and the time be allocated in the following fashion: 9
a.m. to 9:15 under the control of the majority party; 9:15 to 9:30
under the control of Senator Harkin; from 9:30 to 9:45 under the
control of Senator Johnson; from 9:45 to 10 a.m. under the control of
the majority party; from 10 a.m. until 10:15 under the control of
Senator Sarbanes; from 10:15 to 10:30 under the control of the majority
party; from 10:30 to 10:45 under the control of Senator Lieberman; from
10:45 to 11 a.m. under the control of the majority party; from 11
o'clock to 11:10 under the control of Senator Edwards; from 11:10 to
11:15 under the control of Senator Gramm of Texas; from 11:15 to 11:45
a.m. under the control of Senator Wellstone; Senator Leahy or his
designee from 11:45 to 12:15; Senator Hatch or his designee in control
from 12:15 to 12:45 in the afternoon; and Senator Daschle or his
designee from 12:45 in the afternoon to 1:15; Senator Bond in control
from 1:15 to 1:30; and Senator Lott in control from 1:30 to 1:45.
I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 the Senate proceed to a vote on
the confirmation of the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney
General of the United States.
Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if I
could ask the distinguished leader, this locks in the vote at 1:45. Is
it his assumption that should everybody have used up their time prior
to that, there may be a new request to move the vote time earlier?
Mr. LOTT. I believe this would indicate that the vote will be not
later than 1:45. If Senators yield back their time or don't use the
entire time, and we could finish at an early hour--11:30 or 12:00--I
would be very appreciative of that. I would be willing to yield some of
my own time to accomplish that. If we see we are ready to proceed to a
vote at noon tomorrow, certainly, I would like to be able to do that.
I thank Senator Leahy, and especially Senator Reid, for working this
agreement out, and to all Senators who have been willing to accomplish
it so we can complete this debate and get a vote.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LOTT. In light of this agreement, the next vote will occur on the
confirmation of our former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, not later
than 1:45 p.m. tomorrow, and earlier if the time has been yielded back
and we are ready to proceed to a final vote.
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.
Mr. REID. After Senator Kennedy, I will make a statement, and Senator
Graham from Florida will make a statement. I say to all the Senators,
either with the majority or the Democratic side, if they feel they
still want to talk, they can come and talk tonight.
Mr. LOTT. I believe we have some Senators committed to speak after
that, at least two more within the next hour, interspersed with other
speakers.
Mr. REID. The point I make, no one should complain they don't have
the ability to talk.
Mr. LOTT. It is not that late by Senate time. I believe we have one
speaker who will speak at 7:50 or so, and if other Senators who haven't
spoken would like to get in the queue, we would like them to do that,
or Senators who were thinking they want to wait until tomorrow, I think
it would be well received if they could go ahead and speak tonight.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of
speakers be reversed and that Senator Kennedy precede the Senator from
Nevada.
[[Page S899]]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the leaders. I will just take a
few moments to respond to some points that were made earlier in the day
by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
Earlier this morning I took the time to review the history of the
challenges that were there for St. Louis in terms of desegregation of
the schools and the actions that were taken or failed to be taken by
the nominee, Mr. Ashcroft. I took a considerable amount of time to
review the whole history and review the cases there. I drew the
conclusion that there was a gross failure of, I think, judgment in
terms of taking the necessary steps to protect the interests of the
children. Those cases were later challenged during the course of the
afternoon, and I would like to respond very briefly and then to
conclude with the remainder of my remarks that I had this morning,
which, because others were here on the floor, I did not have the time
to do.
My food friend from Utah talked earlier about the St. Louis
desegregation case. Unfortunately, he continued the pattern on the
other side of expressing outrage about the fact that desegregation can
be expensive, without being outraged by the injustice being done to the
African American children in St. Louis.
The simple fact is that Senator Ashcroft spent his career as attorney
general denying the facts of discrimination and segregation. He
continued to deny them at his confirmation hearing, and many of our
colleagues are attempting to deny them on the floor of the Senate.
The facts are clear. The state of Missouri was found guilty by the
courts of segregating the schools and keeping them segregated all the
way through the 1970s. The court's findings in 1980 made very clear
that the state was aggressively maintaining segregation. Even black
families who had moved out to the suburbs saw their children bused back
into the inner-city to black schools. As the court ruled in 1982:
We held . . . that the state had substantially contributed
to the segregation of the public schools of the City of St.
Louis . . . the state defendants are primary constitutional
wrongdoers and, therefore, can be required to take those
actions which will further the desegregation of the city
schools, even if the actions required will occur outside the
boundaries of the city school district.
Yet Senator Ashcroft continued to insist that the state was ``found
guilty of no wrong.''
Some of our colleagues claimed that Senator Ashcroft's position was
vindicated by the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Jenkins. But the Jenkins
case was from Kansas City. It had nothing to do with St. Louis.
The Supreme Court rejected every one of Ashcroft's three appeals in
the St. Louis case. He also complained that some of the money went to
the suburban schools. It went for the students who transferred to the
suburban schools; that is Public School Choice. He said that the test
scores went down in St. Louis in the nineties.
What is clear, is that the students who transferred had consistently
twice to three times the graduation rate, and in some districts, 90
percent of the graduates went on to college.
Defenders of Senator Ashcroft also claimed that desegregation in
Missouri was more expensive than anywhere except California. We all
know what made it expensive--the unrelenting 16 year fight against
doing anything to fix the problem by Senator Ashcroft when he was
Attorney General and Governor of the State.
If Senator Ashcroft was simply protecting the state's treasury he
could easily have proposed a cheaper alternative to the court. If he
was concerned that the courts was ordering desegregation, he could
easily have supported a state law to correct the problem.
In fact, the state is not paying for the plan anymore, and that's
because Senator Ashcroft successors, Attorney General Jay Nixon and
Governor Mel Carnahan, provided the leadership needed to settle the
cases and start improving education for all the children in St. Louis.
Earlier, I spoke at length about Senator Ashcroft's record on civil
rights--especially, school desegregation and voting rights--and his
record on women's rights and gun control. At this time, I intend to
discuss Senator Ashcroft's treatment of judicial and executive branch
nominees.
I know others have referenced some of them, but I want to underscore
my own reaction and response to the handling of these nominations by
Senator Ashcroft.
Senator Ashcroft's handling of judicial and executive branch
nominations raises deep concerns. In four of the most divisive
nomination battles in the Senate in the six years he served with us,
Senator Ashcroft was consistently involved in harsh and vigorous
opposition to the confirmation of distinguished and well-qualified
African Americans, an Asian American, and a gay American.
When President Clinton nominated Judge Ronnie White of the Missouri
Supreme Court to be a federal district court judge, Senator Ashcroft
flagrantly distorted the record of the nominee and attacked him in the
strongest terms. He accused Judge White of being ``an activist with a
slant toward criminals.'' He accused him of being a judge with ``a
serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty.'' He
accused him of seeking ``at every turn'' to provide opportunities for
the guilty to ``escape punishment.'' He accused him of voting ``to
reverse the death sentence in more cases than any other [Missouri]
Supreme Court judge.''
When questioned about Judge White's nomination, Senator Ashcroft did
not retreat from his characterization of Judge White's record, although
a review clearly demonstrates that Senator Ashcroft's charges were
baseless. It's clear that Senator Ashcroft distorted the record in
order to portray Judge White's confirmation as a referendum on the
death penalty.
Senator Ashcroft had decided to use the death penalty as an issue in
his campaign for re-election to the Senate, and to make his point, he
cruelly distorted the honorable record of a distinguished African
American judge and denied him the position he deserved as a federal
district court judge. As I said at the hearing, what Senator Ashcroft
did to Judge White is the ugliest thing that has happened to a nominee
in all my years in the Senate.
Senator Ashcroft was also asked about the nominations of Bill Lann
Lee to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Dr. David
Satcher to serve as Surgeon General of the United States, and James
Hormel to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.
Senator Ashcroft told the committee that he could not support Mr. Lee
because he had ``serious concerns about his willingness to enforce the
Adarand decision'' on affirmative action. In truth, however, Mr. Lee's
position on affirmative action was well within the mainstream of the
law, and he repeatedly told the committee that he would follow the
Supreme Court's ruling in the Adarand case. As Senator Leahy said
during the Ashcroft confirmation hearings,
Mr. Lee testified on a number of occasions--in fact,
testified under oath, including, incidentally, directly in
answer to your questions, that he would enforce the law as
declared in Adarand. And he also said, in direct answer to
questions of this committee, he considered the Adarand
decision of the Supreme Court as the controlling legal
authority of the land, that he would seek to enforce it, he
would give it full effect . . .
That wasn't sufficient for Senator Ashcroft and he continued to
oppose, and oppose strongly, this extraordinarily well-qualified,
committed, and dedicated public servant.
Similarly, Senator Ashcroft said he did not support Dr. Satcher to be
Surgeon General because he:
. . . supported a number of activities that I thought were
inconsistent with the ethical obligations of a medical doctor
and a physician, particularly the surgeon general * * * for
example he supported an AIDS study on pregnant women in
Africa where some patients were given placebos, even though a
treatment existed to limit transmission of AIDS from the
mother to the child * * * I, secondly, believed his
willingness to send AIDS-infected babies home with their
mothers without telling their mothers about the infection of
the children was another ethical problem that was very
serious.
In fact, at the time of the debate on the Satcher nomination in 1997,
approximately 1,000 babies were born with HIV every day. Most of the
births were in developing countries, where the U.S.-accepted regimen of
AZT treatment is not practical because of safety
[[Page S900]]
and cost concerns. In 1994, the World Health Organization had called a
meeting of international experts to review the use of AZT to prevent
the spread of HIV in pregnancy. That meeting resulted in the
recommendation that studies be conducted in developing countries to
test the effectiveness and safety of short-term AZT therapy that could
be used in developing countries and that those studies be placebo-
controlled to ensure safety in areas with various immune challenges.
Approval was obtained by ethics committees in this country and the host
countries and by the UNAIDS program.
The studies were supported by many leaders in the medical field, and
the facts undermine Senator Ashcroft's criticism of Dr. Satcher.
Senator Ashcroft also mischaracterized Dr. Satcher's role in the
survey of HIV child-bearing women. In 1995, seven years after the
survey began during the Reagan Administration, Dr. Satcher, as acting
CDC director, and Dr. Phil Lee, former Assistant Secretary for Health,
halted the HIV survey. They did so because of a combination of better
treatment options for children with HIV, the discovery of a therapeutic
regimen to reduce mother-to-infant HIV transmission, and a greater
ability to monitor HIV trends in women of childbearing age in other
ways.
Dr. Satcher's participation in the survey was justified, and it was
not a valid reason for Senator Ashcroft to deny him confirmation as
Surgeon General.
It was a gross distortion of his record in this situation. To
criticize him for taking actions which were inconsistent with ethical
considerations in that case was a complete distortion of the record.
The case of James Hormel is also especially troubling. When Mr.
Hormel was nominated by President Clinton to serve as Ambassador to
Luxembourg, Senator Ashcroft and Senator Helms were the only two
members of the Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the nomination.
Although Senator Ashcroft voted against Mr. Hormel, Senator Ashcroft
did not attend the confirmation hearings, did not submit written
questions, and refused Mr. Hormel's repeated requests to meet or speak
by phone to discuss the nomination.
Generally, as a matter of courtesy, if a nominee asks individual
members to meet with them to explain their positions, respond to
questions, as long as it have been in the Senate that has been a
privilege that has been extended. But not by Mr. Ashcroft to Mr.
Hormel, in spite of repeated requests.
In 1998, when asked about his opposition to Mr. Hormel's nomination,
Senator Ashcroft stated that homosexuality is a sin and that a person's
sexual conduct:
is within what could be considered and what is eligible for
consideration.
Senator Ashcroft also publicly stated in 1998 that:
[Mr. Hormel's] conduct and the way in which he would
represent the United States is probably not up to the
standard that I would expect.
Senator Leahy asked Senator Ashcroft at the Judiciary Committee
hearings whether he opposed Hormel's nomination because of Hormel's
sexual orientation. Senator Ashcroft responded ``I did not.'' Instead,
Senator Ashcroft claimed that he had ``known Mr. Hormel for a long
time''--Mr. Hormel had been a dean of students at the University of
Chicago law school when Senator Ashcroft was a student there in the
1960s. Senator Ashcroft repeatedly testified that he based his
opposition to Mr. Hormel on the ``totality of the record.''
Mr. Hormel was so troubled by Senator Ashcroft's testimony that he
wrote to the committee and said the following:
I want to state unequivocally and for the record that there
is no personal or professional relationship between me and
Mr. Ashcroft which could possibly support such a statement.
The letter continued:
I have had no contact with him [Ashcroft] of any type since
I left my position as Dean of Students . . . nearly thirty-
four years ago, in 1967 . . . For Mr. Ashcroft to state that
he was able to assess my qualifications . . . based upon his
personal long-time relationship with me is misleading,
erroneous, and disingenuous . . . I find it personally
offensive that Mr. Ashcroft, under oath and in response to
your direct questions, would choose to misstate the nature of
our relationship, insinuate objective grounds for voting
against me, and deny that his personal viewpoint about my
sexual orientation played any role in his actions.
We should all be deeply concerned about Senator Ashcroft's
willingness to mislead the Judiciary Committee about his reasons for
opposing the Hormel nomination. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted on
January 22, 2001:
[T]he most disturbing part of Mr. Ashcroft's testimony was
the way in which he misstated important parts of his record.
Senator Ashcroft's efforts to derail the nominations of these four
distinguished men was grounded in a distortion of the facts. In every
case, He twisted events to suit his purposes and held the nominees to a
standard by which he could not be confirmed.
Sadly, the facts surrounding these nominations represent the tip of
the iceberg. Year after year, Senator Ashcroft worked to prevent the
confirmation of talented women and minorities--Marsha Berzon, Richard
Paez, Margaret McKeown, and others. In some instances he was successful
and--fortunately--in others, he was not. But, what is most disturbing
is Senator Ashcroft's unfair treatment of well-qualified men and women,
and, what appears to be, a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of
a federal jurist or the role of a member of the President's Cabinet.
I want to mention Senator Ashcroft's decades-long opposition to gun
control legislation.
Senator Ashcroft is closely tied to the gun lobby and he has often
accepted contributions from these organizations and supported their
agendas. During the hearing, he told us that keeping guns out of the
hands of felons is a ``top priority'' of his. Yet, in 1998, this did
not seem to be a top priority for him. He supported an NRA-sponsored
ballot initiative that would have allowed almost anyone to carry
concealed guns in Missouri. The proposal was so filled with loopholes
that it would have allowed convicted child molesters and stalkers to
carry semi-automatic pistols into bars, sports stadiums, casinos and
day care centers. The proposal was opposed by numerous law enforcement
groups and many in the business community. Proponents of the measure
say Senator Ashcroft volunteered his help to support the referendum,
even recording a radio and endorsing the proposal. Senator Ashcroft
stated in response to written questions that:
Although [he did] not recall the specific details, [his]
recollection is that supporters of the referendum approached
[him] and asked [him] to record the radio spot.
The fact remains that Senator Ashcroft did support the referendum and
did record the radio spot. Few can doubt that as a seasoned politician,
Senator Ashcroft made himself fully aware of the contents of the
referendum before lending his name to it. And if he did not, there is
even greater reason to question his judgment and suitability for such a
high and important position in our Federal Government.
Senator Ashcroft championed the NRA's concealed weapon proposition in
1998. But in 1992, while governor of Missouri, he had voiced his
concerns about such a measure. As governor, he stated he had ``grave
concerns'' about concealed carry laws. He stated:
Overall, I don't know that I would be one to want to
promote a whole lot of people carrying concealed weapons in
this society.
He further stated:
Obviously, if it's something to authorize everyone to carry
concealed weapons, I'd be concerned about it.
When asked about his change of view in deciding to support the 1998
initiative, Senator Ashcroft said he changed his position because of
``Research plus real-world experiences.''
However, Senator Ashcroft's research was so flawed that he responded
to written questions that ``[t]o the extent there were loopholes in
Missouri law'' that would permit convicted child molesters and stalkers
to carry concealed weapons, he was ``unaware of those provisions at the
time.'' Later, it was reported that the gun lobby spent $400,000 in
support of Senator Ashcroft's Senate reelection campaign. He became:
the unabashed celebrity spokesman . . . for the National
Rifle Association's recent attempts to arm citizens with
concealed weapons in Missouri.
That is according to a column by Laura Scott in the Kansas City Star.
[[Page S901]]
The Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms gave
Senator Ashcroft the ``Gun Rights Defender of the Month'' Award for
leading the opposition to David Satcher's nomination to be Surgeon
General. The group objected to Dr. Satcher because he advocated
treating gun violence as a public health problem.
Based on his close ties to the gun lobby and his strong support for
their agenda, it is difficult to have confidence that Senator Ashcroft
will fully and fairly enforce the nation's gun control laws and not
seek to weaken them.
Senator Ashcroft has shown time and time again that he supports the
gun lobby and opposes needed gun safety measures. Given the important
litigation in the Federal courts, it is imperative to have an Attorney
General who will strongly enforce current gun control laws such as the
Brady law, the assault weapons ban, and other statutes. It is also
important to have an Attorney General with a responsible view of
proposed legislation when the Department of Justice is asked to comment
on it.
In conclusion, the Attorney General of the United States leads the
85,000 men and women who enforce the Nation's laws in every community
in the country. The Attorney General is the Nation's chief law
enforcement officer and a symbol of the Nation's commitment to justice.
Americans from every walk of life deserve to have trust in him to be
fair and just in his words and in his actions. He has vast powers to
enforce the laws and set priorities for law enforcement in ways that
are fair or unfair--just or unjust.
When a President nominates a person to serve in his Cabinet, the
presumption is rightly in favor of the nominee. But Senator Ashcroft
has a long and detailed record of relentless opposition on fundamental
issues of civil rights and other basic rights of vital importance to
all the people of America, and the people of this country deserve
better than that. Americans are entitled to an Attorney General who
will vigorously fight to uphold the law and protect our constitutional
rights. Based on a detailed review of his long record in public
service, Senator Ashcroft is not that man. I urge the Senate to vote no
on this nomination.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Kennedy continues to
mischaracterize Senator Ashcroft's record with regard to school
desegregation. First, let me say that I do not in the least condone
segregation in St. Louis or Kansas City or anywhere else. It is a
shameful legacy that must be dealt with appropriately.
Second, while the costs of the desegregation program were exorbitant
this is not the only criticism to be made of the plans. The primary
argument repeatedly made by Senator Ashcroft is that the state was
never found liable for an inter-district violation.
Senator Kennedy refers to an 8th circuit decision that he argues
found the State of Missouri guilty of an inter-district violation. But
a circuit court cannot make such a factual finding. Rather this is a
finding that must be made by the trial court.
The fact that the State was never found liable for an inter-district
violation is shown by the fact that throughout 1981 and 1982 the
parties were preparing for a trial on the very question of inter-
district liability.
So again, I emphasize that it is true and correct to say that the
State was never found liable for an inter-district violation.
Although the State was not found liable for an inter-district
violation it was required by the district court to pay for a settlement
reached by the suburbs and the City of St. Louis. This order by the
district court was likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's
decision in Milliken.
Opposing these court orders for a plan that was constitutionally
suspect, expensive, and ineffective, does not make Senator Ashcroft an
opponent of desegregation.
Indeed, the plan as implemented has been a dismal failure. Test
scores actually declined from 1990 to 1995. Scores on the Stanford
Achievement Test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at a time when the national
mean was 50. And the graduation rate has remained around a dismal 30
percent.
He has repeatedly stated the opposite position.
To question Senator Ashcroft's integrity over such a complicated and
controversial issue is to seriously distort his record and disbelieve
his sworn testimony.
Senator Ashcroft acted with great probity as representative for the
State of Missouri. He supports integration and deplores racism.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Department of Justice is the
representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as
its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, is that justice
shall be done.
That obligation of impartiality, oft repeated by the Supreme Court,
courses as the lifeblood through all departments of any fair and
representative government. From it springs the confidence in government
which is the presupposition central to the Founding Fathers' basic
premise; that government derives its proper power only from the consent
of the governed.
When George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency, when he took his
oath of office, he promised the American people that he would not
divide our house against itself. I took him at his word.
When he nominated John Ashcroft as Attorney General I kept an open
mind and determined that I would, as I have always tried to do in the
past, judge the nominee upon the evidence presented regarding his
fitness for office, and that I would give the chief executive what
leeway I could in his choice of people to carry out his plans and
policies. That license, however, is not unlimited, for it is also my
obligation to pass upon the nominee; to weigh the evidence of his or
her past and determine how it will affect our country's future.
I have weighed the facts revealed before the Judiciary Committee to
the best of my ability. The evidence has convinced me that Mr. Ashcroft
has demonstrated real and substantial biases against women, people of
color, gays and lesbians, and anyone else who does not meet his
personal definition of what constitutes a true American. Not only has
he shown that pervasive bias, he has repeatedly acted upon it as
attorney general and Governor of Missouri and as a member of this body.
It is with sadness I stand here tonight to say that the facts have
forced me to two conclusions. First, John Ashcroft, while he has many
fine qualities, he is not the person to be this country's chief law
enforcement officer. Second, while President George W. Bush may wish to
be a unifier, he is not willing to put unity above partisan appeal to
the most extreme elements in the Republican Party.
To President Bush I say this. Please remember that it was the first
Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who quoted from the Bible these
words, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' You, President
Bush, campaigned on a platform of unification of this Nation. I will
support every effort of yours to do so, but unification does not mean
that we abandon our commitment to fairness and impartiality and
essential decency in government.
To John Ashcroft, I say that I cannot confirm to an office whose
obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as his obligation to
govern at all; and whose interest, is that justice shall be done a man
who has repeatedly and pervasively demonstrated that he is not
impartial, and that he judges individuals not by the content of their
souls but rather by the tint of their ideology. I cannot confirm a man
who allows his bias against another's most personal lifestyle choices
to effect his decision on whether that individual is fit to enter
public service. I cannot confirm a man who prevents women from options
to which they should be entitled. I cannot confirm as Attorney General
anyone who will not confer upon that office the impartiality it demands
and, most importantly, deserves.
Mr. President, I cannot for the women of Nevada, for the people of
Nevada, vote to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United
States.
So when my name is called by the clerk of the Senate, I will respond
without hesitation ``No.''
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, many of my Democratic
colleagues rose today and expressed their
[[Page S902]]
objections to the nomination of former Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney
General of the United States. I do not wish to recapitulate their
arguments, but I share many of their concerns regarding his nomination.
I believe former Senator John Ashcroft has been a dedicated public
servant who has acted in what he felt was the public's best interest.
But his record has stirred controversy on a wide-range of issues. The
position of attorney general is one of great importance to the people
of the United States. An Attorney General must unite the citizens.
Unfortunately, Senator Ashcroft's record has tended to be divisive
rather than unifying.
Most importantly, many Floridians are afraid that Senator Ashcroft
will turn back the clock on civil rights after all the progress that
has been made over the years. Based on his record and his testimony
before the Judiciary Committee, I share their concern.
An Attorney General, of all the Cabinet officers, must be perceived
to be the most vigilant enforcer of the law, an attorney who will
represent all the people's interest. I am afraid this nomination does
not meet that test. Thus, I am voting against confirmation.
Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I truly believe that a President is
entitled to his, or her, cabinet. I am aware that virtually all of
President Clinton's cabinet was approved by voice vote, with one
exception, which was a roll call vote, and that nominee was
overwhelmingly approved.
However, the background record of this nominee is not mainstream on
the key issues. I know he is strong and tough on law and order issues.
However, his views on certain issues--civil rights and desegregation, a
woman's right to choose and guns--make him an enormously divisive and
polarizing figure.
This record can best be characterized as ultra-right wing. That is
not where most of the people in this nation are.
Senator Ashcroft's commitment to enforce the law in view of the
extremeness of his record, as well as, on occasion, the harshness of
his rhetoric, makes it difficult to believe that he can, in fact,
fairly and aggressively enforce laws he deeply believes are wrong.
When Senator John Ashcroft opposed Bill Lann Lee's nomination to head
the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, he argued that
Lee was ``an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to
carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not
with the kind of balance that belongs to administration . . . his
pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his
capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be
necessary for the person who runs [the Civil Rights] Division.''
If the Senator's own standard is applied to this nomination, he would
not be confirmed.
Last week, this committee held four days of hearings into the
nomination of Senator Ashcroft. During that time, we witnessed a man
who had undergone a major transformation on many key issues of
importance to the people of my State and the nation. The question that
each Senator must now ask, is whether that transformation is plausible
after more than 25 years of advocating the other side.
On a woman's right to choose, for example, the new John Ashcroft
would have us believe that he fully accepts Roe v. Wade as the law of
the land, and he will do nothing to try to overturn it. He would fully
fund task forces to protect women as they enter abortion clinics, and
stated firmly that ``no woman should fear being threatened or coerced
in seeking constitutionally protected health services.''
Contrast that with the John Ashcroft of the past 25 years, who has
long argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion at all,
that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and in 1998 wrote that ``If I had
the opportunity to pass but a single law. I would . . . ban every
abortion except those medically necessary to save the life of the
mother.'' This John Ashcroft supported a constitutional amendment to
ban virtually all abortions, even in the cases of rape and incest--an
amendment that would also likely ban some of the most common forms of
birth control, including the pill and the IUD.
The John Ashcroft of 25 years once stated, ``Battles (for the unborn)
are being waged in courtrooms and state legislatures all over the
country. We need every arm, every shoulder, and every hand we can find.
I urge you to enlist yourself in that fight.'' The new John Ashcroft
claims to have laid down his arms entirely.
On gun control, the new John Ashcroft says he supports background
checks at gun shows, says that he voted to deny the right to bear arms
to domestic violence offenders, and says he would support re-
authorizing the assault weapons ban when it expires in 2004, although
he has called it ``wrong-headed.''
The old John Ashcroft, on the other hand, voted against mandatory
background checks at gun shows, trigger locks on guns sold, and a ban
on large capacity ammunition magazines. He supported a concealed
weapons law that would allow the people of Missouri to carry a
concealed firearm into a grocery store, a church, or on school grounds
or on a school bus, superceding the Federal Gun Free Schools Act. He
was, and still may be, an active member of the National Rifle
Association.
On civil rights, the old John Ashcroft strenuously fought a
desegregation plan in Missouri. In fact, the judge in the case stated
that Attorney General Ashcroft, ``as a matter of deliberate policy,
decided to defy the authority of this court.''
The old John Ashcroft spoke at Bob Jones University, that to this day
remains highly questionable for its religious and racial bias; at the
hearing he demurred when Senator Biden urged him to return the honorary
degree and did not rule out returning to the college in the future.
And the old John Ashcroft, in stating his reasons for voting against
James Hormel as Ambassador for Luxemburg, stated that Hormel had
``actively supported the gay lifestyle,'' and that a person's sexual
conduct is ``within what could be considered and what is eligible for
consideration'' for ambassadorial nominees.
Yet the new John Ashcroft promises never to discriminate against gays
or lesbians for employment and said the reason for voting against
Ambassador Hormel was because he knew him personally. Mr. Hormel called
to tell me that he not only does not know Mr. Ashcroft, but that the
Senator had refused to meet with him prior to his confirmation.
For over a quarter-century of public life, John Ashcroft has
established a record of right-wing conservatism, and of views far to
the right of the average American, and even of many in his own party.
Senator Ashcroft has spent a career fighting against a woman's right to
choose. He obstructed the nominations of several women and minority
candidates to the federal bench.
Senator Aschcroft said just two short years ago that `There are
voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who
champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to
reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner
of unabashed conservatism, it is now.''
In 1997, Senator Ashcroft remarked that ``People's lives and fortunes
[have] been relinquished to renegade judges--a robed, contemptuous
intellectual elite.'' He continued that ``Judicial despotism . . .
stands like a behemoth over this great land.''
In a speech entitled ``Courting Disaster: Judicial Despotism in the
Age of Russell Clark,'' Senator Ashcroft reveals deep and antagonistic
feelings toward the courts of our country with this sentence: ``Can it
be said that the `people govern'? Can it still be said that citizens
control that which matters most? Or have people's lives and fortunes
been relinquished to renegade judges--a robed contemptuous,
intellectual elite that has turned the courts into `nurseries of vice
and the bane of liberty'?''
And in the case of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White's
nomination to the federal bench, Senator Ashcroft was responsible for a
dark day in the Senate. When a home-state Senator objects to a nominee,
it is very unlikely that the nomination will go forward. But instead of
quietly objecting early on and allowing White to withdraw his
nomination with dignity if he so wished, John Ashcroft waited until the
nominee reached the floor of the Senate--after waiting for two full
[[Page S903]]
years--to derail the nomination and humiliate the nominee by stating,
``We do not need judges with a tremendous bent toward criminal
activity.''
Whatever Senator Ashcroft's problem with Ronnie White, there was no
need to destroy White's reputation on the floor of the Senate, with no
warning and no chance for Judge White to either defend himself or
withdraw. This one act has become a stumbling block to my support,
which I have not been able to get around. It says to me that it was
done for political purposes.
Taken as a whole, Senator Ashcroft's positions and statements, in my
view, do not unite, but rather divide. They send strong signals to the
dispossessed, the racial minorities of our country, and particularly to
all women who have fought long and hard for reproductive freedom that
this Attorney General will not be supportive of laws for which they
fought, no matter what he has said in the past weeks.
How can our citizens feel that this man will stand up for them when
their civil rights are violated? How can the left out, the rape victim
who needs an abortion have faith that this man would enforce their
rights?
In the end, every Senator must live with his or her own vote, and for
this Senator, that vote will be ``no.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a Senator, I do not serve on the
Judiciary Committee, but I have watched nearly every hour of their
hearing on the confirmation of John Ashcroft to be our next Attorney
General of the United States.
I have watched while men and women of good will, while attempting to
speak in soft and mellow tones, have been intimidated and bludgeoned by
the far left to such a point that we now hear them come to the floor of
the Senate and reach to find excuses to vote against a man of good
faith and a man of good will.
I am not an attorney, nor have I ever claimed to be, but as a human
being who has served in public life for a good number of years and
associated with a great many people, I believe I am a reasonable judge
of character.
This afternoon, I heard a speech from one of my colleagues about
seeing into the heart of John Ashcroft. That particular Senator said
that once she had viewed the heart of John Ashcroft, she could not
support him.
I suggest to that Senator that I have not seen into the heart of John
Ashcroft, but I know it because I have lived near it and around it for
the last 6 years. I know of its sincerity and its compassion. I know of
its love of people and love of this institution. I know of its great
patriotic pride for its country. I know of a heart that has served as a
State attorney general, a Governor, a Senator, and who will soon serve
as the U.S. Attorney General.
No, I have not seen the heart. I know the heart, and I know it to be
a heart of compassion, but I also know it to be a heart of truth, one
who, when he looks into the eyes of his colleagues and says, ``I will
enforce the laws of this Nation,'' he and he alone is telling the
truth.
Why could we assume he would tell the truth when others in past years
have failed that test? Because he is a moral and ethical Christian.
That is a very valuable and important definition to understand
because if you meet that definition, you must enforce the law; it is
within your character and your being that you do such. Lawmakers and
law enforcers are different types of people, but within the character
of the definition I have just given, they are people who, by their very
being, must enforce the law. They cannot arbitrarily, they cannot
philosophically, nor can they politically, adjust the law as we have
seen it for 8 long years be adjusted to meet the politics of the day.
Quite the opposite happens with a man of the character of John
Ashcroft; for if he does not like the law, if he does not feel it
comports to his belief of what the culture and the character of our
country ought to be, does he not enforce it? No. He turns to the
lawmaking body, us, and says: You ought to change the law. It does not
fit the character or the essence of the American way of life. But while
it is here, I will enforce it as your Attorney General. You see, I
must; it is my responsibility. I have taken the oath of office, and in
taking that oath, I must uphold the law.
Yes, John Ashcroft is a Christian. He is a man of faith. My wife
Suzanne and I know John and Janet Ashcroft well and personally. We have
traveled around the country and around the world with them. He is a
close, personal friend. In all of those times that we have traveled
together, I have never heard him once speak ill of another human being.
Not once have I ever heard him impugn the character of another human
being.
Oh, John Ashcroft is a passionate man. He believes strongly in
certain ``isms.'' But most importantly, he believes in Jesus Christ. He
is a Christian. That is a character valuable to the culture of our
country.
What I have seen or what I have felt over the last several weeks is
the ultimate test coming down on John Ashcroft. While it has not been
spoken, I sincerely believe it has been implied, that if you are a
Christian, if you are a person of faith, you cannot serve in public
life and in public office in this country because it, in some way,
``taints'' the way you think, the way you act, the way you respond.
I offer that challenge up to all of my colleagues because if that is
what is being implied by the far left today, then shame on them, for it
is outside the character of this country and it is outside the
Constitution of this country.
Let me read from article VI. The last full paragraph of that article
says:
The Senators, and Representatives before mentioned, and the
Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive
and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to
support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever
be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust
under the United States.
That is the Constitution of the United States. That is the hallowed
voice of our Founding Fathers. Yet by implication and innuendo, the far
left of this country has implied, time and time again over the last
several weeks, that a Christian person, a person of faith, cannot be
trusted to serve and render the just and appropriate interpretation of
the laws of this country. That is not only wrong for our country; that
is wrong under our Constitution. That test can never be allowed to be
applied, whether on the right or on the left or down the center. It is
a test of character that we have prohibited in this country for all
time. And because we have prohibited it, our country is a sanctuary for
all the world to seek.
Mr. President, I am confident, because I know John Ashcroft--I know
his heart, that he is a man of unquestionable character who will do as
he has said he will do before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--
that he will enforce the laws of this land, so help him God.
I yield the floor.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation of
John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States.
I spent 15 years of my professional career as a prosecutor, as a U.S.
Attorney, in the Department of Justice. It is an institution for which
I have the highest respect that I can express. The goal of equal
justice under law is one of the highest and most valuable ideals any
nation can have. I am convinced that this Nation's strength is because
of our legal system, our pursuit of truth and accuracy and fairness in
giving everybody their day in court.
We need to give nominees here their day in court. And if we do, John
Ashcroft will be found to be a sterling nominee. The complaints that
are made against him collapse in the face of the facts. And I believe
that is plain and accurate. I think that is an accurate statement. It
disappoints me to hear people persist in pursuing objections and
complaints that, if fairly looked at and considered objectively, are
not meritorious.
Before I make my general remarks--and I will just respond to a few
things that have been said--I would like to
[[Page S904]]
have printed in the Record a letter that was published in the
Washington Post today. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2001]
Confirm John Ashcroft
Alamerica Bank,
Birmingham, AL, January 31, 2001.
To Members of the United States Senate: I am an African-
American from Birmingham, Alabama. I live in a state known
around the world for its long and ugly history of racial
segregation and pervasive discrimination.
I am a former National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (``NAACP'') and Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (``SCLC'') trial attorney and a staunch supporter
of each organization's mission and goals. After graduating
from law school in 1973, I spent the next two decades
litigating and winning landmark school desegregation, fair
housing and equal employment opportunity cases for the NAACP
and SCLC. In 1976, I obtained a full and complete pardon from
the State of Alabama for Mr. Clarence Norris, the last known
surviving ``Scottsboro Boy''.
I voted for former President Bill Clinton twice and
supported him in his fight against impeachment. I also voted
for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman last Fall. I am a political
independent who assesses a political candidate or appointee's
fitness for office based upon the content of his character--
NOT his party affiliation.
I believe it is time for the United States Senate to
confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Here is why:
1. As a former Governor and U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft may
have played political hardball, but he is not a racist.
When John Ashcroft was first nominated to be Attorney
General, I read the newspaper stories about his successful
effort to defeat the federal judgeship nomination of Missouri
Supreme Court Justice, Ronnie White. I was highly concerned.
I watched the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. There, I
saw a different story. I learned that Messrs. White and
Ashcroft were skillful and brilliant players at the game of
legislative hardball.
Mr. White, while a state legislator, used his powerful
committee chairmanship position to engage in political
jousting with then Governor Ashcroft. Years later, Mr.
Ashcroft continued the jousting by using his influence as a
Senator to defeat Mr. White's nomination to become a federal
district judge.
The defeat of Justice White was hardball, not racism. Mr.
White himself testified that John Ashcroft was not a racist.
2. It is time for America to have an Attorney General who
will enforce the law equally and fairly for all Americans.
As Black Americans, we see the problem of crime in America
up close and personal. Black Americans are among its greatest
victims. For us, it is particularly important that the
enforcement of our law be strong, effective and fair.
Mr. Ashcroft has also promised to investigate all alleged
voting rights violations, particularly those lodged in
Florida in the aftermath of last Fall's election. We expect
him to prosecute any criminal violations if federal laws
protecting voting rights were broken in Florida.
3. It is time to restore civility and dignity to the Senate
confirmation process.
Americans have watched the Senate confirmation process
deteriorate over the years since the Robert Bork nomination
in 1987. What used to be a calm exploration of a nominee's
qualifications often now becomes a trial by ordeal. Both
political parties decry the so-called ``politics of personal
destruction'' and then eagerly employ it. Special interest
groups on all sides regard a confirmation battle as a
fundraising opportunity and a test of strength, regardless of
its impact on the nominee. A vote for John Ashcroft will not,
in itself, restore civility to the confirmation process, but
it will help.
It is time for all Americans to stop fighting the outcome
of last Fall's election and give President Bush a chance to
govern. President Bush has selected a diverse and inclusive
cabinet. We must give his team an opportunity to lead this
nation. If Mr. Ashcroft does not live up to his commitment to
enforce our federal laws on an even-handed basis, we can deal
with that in the political arena at a later date. Until then,
we should respect President Bush's choice for Attorney
General.
Sincerely,
Donald V. Watkins,
Founder and Chairman.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the letter was paid for by Donald V.
Watkins of Birmingham, Alabama. He is one of Alabama's most prominent
African American leaders, and he is an attorney. I went to law school
with Don.
He has been an active Democrat. He says in his letter that he
supported the Gore-Lieberman ticket this time. He has been a lawyer for
the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a trial
attorney, and ``a staunch supporter of each organization's missions and
goals.''
Don says it is time for us to restore civility and dignity to the
Senate confirmation process. In effect, he says that President Bush has
been elected. He made some promises. He promised to have a more diverse
Cabinet. This civil rights advocate, this skilled lawyer says that he
has followed those commitments and that what the African American
community should do is to insist that he follows the other commitments
he made and judge him on what he does, because he is the President, and
we should give him a fair chance to succeed.
He says John Ashcroft should be confirmed. Quoting from the letter:
Americans have watched the Senate confirmation process
deteriorate over the years since the Bork nomination in 1987.
What used to be a calm exploration of a nominee's
qualifications now often becomes a trial by ordeal. A vote
for John Ashcroft will not, in itself, restore civility to
the confirmation process, but it will help.
Don Watkins says:
It is time for all Americans to stop fighting the outcome
of last Fall's election and give President Bush a chance to
govern. President Bush has selected a diverse and inclusive
cabinet. We must give his team an opportunity to lead this
nation. If Mr. Ashcroft does not live up to his commitment to
enforce our federal laws on an even-handed basis, we can deal
with that in the political arena at a later date. Until then,
we should respect President Bush's choice for Attorney
General.
I think that says it well. I had no advance notice of this. I had no
idea this would appear from this fine and skilled advocate for equal
rights in America.
I want to share a few matters that are important to correct. They
have been repeated so often; I believe they are so incorrect that they
ought to be responded to. First, in this town, people know who are
honest and truthful--people who tell the truth, people who are straight
shooters--it is pretty well known. And it is known those who cannot be
trusted. There are not many you would trust on almost any matter
whatsoever. John Ashcroft, though, is that kind of person. You have
heard people say that repeatedly today and in days past. They know him.
They respect him. He is a man of integrity, a man of religious faith,
yes, a leader in his denomination, a man who is broadly respected all
over America for the very qualities that are so much in need today.
If anybody reads my mail and listens to the comments I am receiving
from people with a longing and a deep concern about their country, that
a man of this quality is beaten up and attacked and dismembered, in
effect, while at the same time we have the same Members of this body
who have been steadfastly and tenaciously defending the kind of spin
that has gone on in this town that led to impeachment and other
matters, they are having a difficult time comprehending that.
Anyway, we are here. People have had their day. They have been able
to appear at the hearing and present their charges. We, as Senators,
are supposed to weigh them. It is all right. I believe in free debate.
Nobody should be stifled--they ought to have their say. But we are not
run here by special interest groups. Handgun Control does not control
in this body. We take an oath to obey the law and to do justice here,
not to kowtow to every group who builds up a campaign to pressure
Members of this body to vote the way they want, threaten them that they
won't support them in primary elections in the future, and otherwise
make their lives miserable in every way they possibly can to get them
to vote a certain way. They have a right to write and threaten and say
they are not going to vote for somebody. It is a free country. But we,
as Senators, have a right and a duty and a responsibility to do the
right thing.
I know there are some conservative groups who tried to pressure
Chairman Hatch on some issues. He said: We are willing to listen to you
and have your input, but I am a Senator. I happen to chair this
committee. As long as I chair the committee, we are going to do this
fairly and above board and no interest group is going to have an undue
influence in how I do my job.
That is a fact. People know that here. We need to remember that as we
go forward with this process.
One of the charges that has been made that is somewhat complicated,
but at bottom is very simple, is this charge that John Ashcroft opposed
integration. That is a bad thing to say. He came before the committee
and
[[Page S905]]
looked us all in the eye and said: I support integration; I do not
oppose integration. He said what he opposed was a Federal court plan
that was extreme, in my view and in the view of a lot of legal
scholars, to create a massive Federal intervention in the educational
systems of Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri. In fact, the Federal
court plans ordered an additional $3 billion in funding to be spent to
carry out these plans. A lot of it was for busing; a lot of it was for
other activities.
This was a big deal. His predecessor opposed that court activity. His
successor opposed it. His second successor opposed it. His second
successor as attorney general was Jay Nixon, with whom I served when I
was Attorney General of Alabama. Jay Nixon opposed this. He is a
Democrat and was supported by two Members of this body in his effort to
run for the U.S. Senate while he was resisting this litigation in the
State. Why would we want to oppose that?
The wording the complainers have used is that he opposed voluntary
court desegregation or voluntary desegregation in Missouri.
Let me tell my colleagues how that happens. I was Attorney General of
Alabama. I have been through this. It is a common thing in America, as
we try to deal with the vestiges of segregation. Some of it was legal.
Some of it has been by just the nature of the residences that
segregation occurred, and various efforts have been made to deal with
this.
It has been said: How did he oppose voluntary desegregation?
This is what happened. Plaintiffs sued St. Louis and Kansas City.
They sued the suburbs, and they got to court and claimed the school
system is segregated by design, in effect. They object to it. They want
it to end. The school systems resist, and the litigation goes on. And
the judge in this case essentially suggested or indicated that he just
might render an order that would eliminate all the suburban cities and
merge them--at least their school systems--merge them with the St.
Louis school system. We would just have one big school system. That is
just what he might do, he said.
So threatened with their very educational system at stake, they
voluntarily, under those kinds of threats, agreed to a plan to spend a
massive amount of money to bus students around in an effort to achieve
racial balance, which the judge was pushing to make happen.
They said: By the way, state of Missouri, you pay for it. We run our
school system here, the city of St. Louis runs theirs, but we want you
to pay the cost of this.
The Attorney General of the State of Missouri was the one person who
had a responsibility and a duty, the lawyer for all the people of
Missouri, to question whether or not citizens all over the State ought
to pay for this kind of massive plan.
He objected to that. He resisted as did two of his successors who
resisted it. In fact, one of the most infamous of all court plans was
because a Federal judge ordered one of the school districts to raise
taxes to pay for his idea of the school.
That is what we are talking about--a consent decree. I have seen
them. They will sue the prison system. The prison system will put up a
little defense, or the mental health system, or the school system will,
and they will go in and say: Judge, I guess you are right. Order the
State of Alabama to give more money to run the prison. Order the State
of Alabama to give more money to the mental health system because these
are the people who would like to have more money because it is their
system they are running, and they don't have an objective position. The
attorney general is the one who has to represent the entire State and
to question what is happening.
Let me tell you why an attorney general has a particular duty to
resist. He has a particular duty because this unelected lifetime-
appointed Federal judge who is saying he is going to abolish the school
district and consolidate them into one, who is taking an action that
violates the Constitution of the State of Missouri--violates the
statutory laws of the State of Missouri, violates the duly elected
school boards and districts, and the school boards' authority given to
them by the people of the State of Missouri and people in that
district. And he is going to rip all of that apart and impose his will
on how education ought to be conducted in the targeted community in
that state.
Do you see how important this is for a principal attorney general. He
should resist and defend unless it is absolutely clear that there is no
other way that a constitutional deprivation can be ended. He should
resist the compromise of the Constitution and laws of his State, as did
his predecessor and as did his two successors. To say those acts of
principal resistance to a Federal evisceration of the local educational
scheme demonstrates lack of concern for children or somebody who wants
to maintain segregation is just plain wrong. We ought not to twist
those kinds of things today into that sort of mentality. I don't like
that.
There is one more thing I will mention--the Bill Lann Lee nomination,
although I could do this on almost every allegation that is before us.
Bill Lann Lee was opposed not just by John Ashcroft. He failed to
come out of the Judiciary Committee on a tie vote, 9-9. I am not aware
that John even spoke about it. Perhaps he did, but I do not know what
he said. I do remember that I spoke against the Lee nomination. I
remember Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee made an eloquent
argument against Mr. Lee.
I would like to mention a couple of things about that. Oh, Mr. Lee,
is so terribly pitiful, that he has just been put upon and he has been
abused, is what they would say.
But let me tell you. We had a full hearing on the Adarand case. We
had a hearing on that. Mrs. Adarand even came. Adarand, for purposes of
background, is the case that sets out the law for quotas in America.
They said you can't have racial set-asides and quotas. Mr. Lee refused
to acknowledge the real meaning of Adarand.
He said he would support Adarand, but when questioned in detail, he
defined it in such a way that it was clear that the chief of the Civil
Rights Division would not support the principle that Adarand stated.
That is why the chairman of the Judiciary Committee opposed it. He made
something like a 15-page speech on this floor and delineated in high
style and with great legal expertise why this was important and why he
reluctantly opposed this nomination. He did not attack--nor did any of
one of us at any time attack--the character of Bill Lann Lee. We simply
said that we believed he did not understand the meaning of that case
and would not follow the law of the United States and, as such, that he
should not be confirmed.
That is what happened. To suggest that John Ashcroft went out of his
way to block this nominee is just one more statement that is inaccurate
and unfair to the good and decent man whom I believe will soon be
Attorney General and whom I am confident will be one of the greatest
Attorneys General in the history of this nation. People are going to
appreciate him. He will restore dignity. He will restore integrity. He
will bring personal probity and decency to that office and will, I
believe, be greatly respected when he concludes.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair. I commend the articulate,
knowledgeable, and eloquent Senator from Alabama for his remarks on a
variety of issues.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. ALLEN. I yield.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have received a statement from the
editor of the Southern Partisan magazine that has been attacked here to
some degree. I have never read the magazine. But it is a refutation of
many of the statements made about the magazine. It certainly is proof
that the magazine is in a much better light than it has been reported
to be here on the floor.
I note that Senator Ashcroft, when he was interviewed by it, simply
did a telephone interview with the magazine. There was no evidence he
ever read it, or saw it, or knew much about it.
I think it would be healthy for the statement of Chris Sullivan,
editor of the Southern Partisan, to be made part of the Record in which
he flatly denies that he favored, or the magazine favored, segregation
or other kinds of racially--discriminatory activities.
[[Page S906]]
I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Southern Partisan,
January 11, 2001.
FROM: Chris Sullivan, Editor
RE: Refutation of false reports now being circulated about
Southern Partisan magazine in an effort to damage John
Ashcroft
A number of false reports are circulating in the national
press, alleging that Southern Partisan is a ``racist,''
``segregationist,'' ``secessionist,'' or ``white-
supremacist'' magazine. This is part of an orchestrated
effort to embarrass Senator John Ashcroft for having once
been interviewed by our magazine.
Most of the distortions can be traced to an article by
Benjamin Soskis in the New Republic which contained a series
of factual errors and distortions extracted from any sense of
fair or accurate context, some of which were clearly
malicious. People for the American Way subsequently loaded
all of those gross distortions onto their web-page. After
that, reporters and editorial writers for mainstream outlets
covering the presidential primary reported the errors as if
they were factual.
For those who may be interested in the facts, I have
assembled the following item-by-item refutation of these
false reports:
1. Senator Joe Biden said on Meet the Press that Southern
Partisan is ``a white-supremacist magazine, or so I've been
told.'' Others have labeled us ``neosegregationist'' and
``racist.''
Those charges are absolutely false. In 20 years of
publication, our journal has never advocated segregation,
white-supremacy or any form of racism. Indeed one of our
central purposes is to defend the South against such
stereotypical and reactionary attacks. Our editors and
contributors have included highly respected writers,
academics and journalists like Russell Kirk, Aleksandr
Solzhenitsyn, Murray Rothbard, Walter Williams, Anthony
Harrigan, Kenneth Cribb, J.O. Tate, Andrew Lytle, Cleanth
Brooks and many others.
2. The allegation that John Ashcroft's interview is somehow
disreputable. A simple listing of others who have been
interviewed in our ``Partisan Conversation'' section (which
is where Ashcroft appeared) should suffice to rebut this
silly charge. Other Interviewees include NBC weatherman
Willard Scott, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, civil
rights activist James Meredith, poet laureate James Dickey
and political leaders like Senators Trent Lott, Phil Gramm,
Jesse Helms and Thad Cochran as well as Ashcroft (a list of
other interviewees is attached).
3. The allegation that our magazine ``praises'' David Duke.
Absolutely not true. Twelve years ago, when Duke was running
for office in Louisiana, he claimed he had converted to
Christianity, renounced his past Klan involvement and
campaigned on a mainstream conservative platform. At that
time, we published a column defending the people of Louisiana
for taking Duke at his word. As it turned out, Mr. Duke was
deceiving everyone. In subsequent years he was rejected by he
voters of Louisiana, which was a happy ending. (I have
attached the full column in question, which is now 12 years
old, to show just how the meaning was twisted by the out-of-
context quote. Item #1 shows he quote extracted by
``researchers'' seeking to damage the magazine. Item #2 makes
the true meaning clear).
4. The allegation that our magazine defends slavery. Again,
that outrageous idea got started by the New Republic. The
quote offered to ``prove'' we defend slavery was taken from a
book review of a scholarly work on slavery called Time on the
Cross. (Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman) One of the
findings of that book (based on plantation economic records)
was that slave families were not frequently broken up,
contrary to what was then a general view. Breaking up slave
families was bad for morale and therefore bad for business.
In preparing this memo, I consulted Dr. Walter Edgar's recent
book on the history of South Carolina, which has been widely
praised. Dr. Edgar is not a Republican or a conservative. The
1998 edition of his book has this to say on page 317:
``Owners realized that it was to their advantage to encourage
stable slave family life . . . Slaves who had families were
less likely to run away. . .'' Obviously, in no way is such a
point intended to justify or defend slavery, which was a
terrible national tragedy. The point the reviewer hoped to
make was that slavery was bad enough without being
exaggerated.
5. The allegation that our magazine engages in ethnic
slurs. The quote most often offered to prove this allegation
was taken from a column Reid Buckley, William F.'s brother,
wrote for us 17 years ago. Here is what the New Republic
reported that Mr. Buckley had written:
``In 1987 the magazine offered a vision of South African
history straight from the apartheid-era textbooks: `God led
[Afrikaners] into the Transvaal, it was with God that they
made their prayerful covenant when they were besieged by
bloodthirsty savages on all sides.' ''
Here is the actual text from which the quote was
dishonestly extracted:
``Then what demon has provoked their hateful policies?
Well, not demon, it transpires upon reading a little South
African history. God Almighty. In their view. [Emphasis in
the original] God led them into the Transvaal, it was with
God that they made their prayerful covenant when they were
besieged by bloodthirsty savages on all side.''
It is obvious to even the most casual reader that Mr.
Buckley is actually criticizing the ``hateful policies'' of
apartheid, not defending them. The New Republic article
extracted a partial quote that completely reversed the
author's meaning. We can only assume that the distortion is
deliberate. Why else would the New Republic writer have
lifted only a portion of the passage?
6. The allegation that our magazine sells hateful t-shirts
and bumper strips, including a shirt with Lincoln's image and
the legend ``sic semper tyrannis'' which are the words Booth
uttered before he shot Lincoln.
There is a web site called pointsouth.com that apparently
sells a variety of Southern novelty items including bumper
strips. We have no ties whatsoever with that web site. For a
time, pointsouth.com carried a link to our web site. When we
discovered that they were selling bumper strips with messages
we found to be tasteless, we asked that the link be deleted.
It was.
As to the Lincoln ``Sic semper tyrannis'' t-shirt: that
tasteless item has never been advertised or sold on the pages
of our magazine. Seven years ago, a part-time staff member of
our magazine offered to compile a catalog of Southern items
available--from various vendors--such as art prints, books,
ties, grits, t-shirts, etc., to raise money to help defray
the cost of the magazine. The catalog was compiled and mailed
to our readers as a separate brochure, without careful review
by our editors. The catalog included a ``tree of liberty'' t-
shirt with the image of an oak tree and a quote from Thomas
Jefferson. Apparently the Lincoln image with the sic semper
tyrannis logo appeared on the reverse side of the t-shirt.
While the slogan was noted in the fine print, that face
escaped our attention. Nevertheless, it was advertised in the
catalog one time seven years ago. The catalog was cancelled
soon thereafter. Yes, the Lincoln message was in poor taste.
It was a mistake. We regret that it was sold through a
catalog our name was briefly associated with. But any effort
to hold Senator Ashcroft accountable for that is absurd.
7. The allegation that our magazine is anti-Semitic.
Of all the charges made, this is the single most baseless.
I do not believe Southern Partisan has ever published a
single negative comment about Jews. On the contrary, we have
published numerous very favorable articles on Jewish
Confederates and Judah P. Benjamin, pointing out that the
Confederate government had a Jewish member of its cabinet 50
years before the federal government. The charge of anti-
Semitism against the magazine is completely unfounded.
8. The allegation that we are hostile to Martin Luther King
Day.
Two decades ago, there was widespread opposition to MLK Day
among conservatives all over the country. Around that time
(18 years ago in fact) we published a column suggesting that
other African-Americans in history might be more worthy of
elevation to holiday status. Examples of George Washington
Carver, Booker T. Washington and General Chappie James were
given. Of course, the debate is long over. MLK Day is now
accepted as a part of the nation's life. Nothing negative has
been written on our pages about MLK Day for the past 18
years. In fact, South Carolina, the State where we publish,
recently converted MLK Day from an optional to a free-
standing holiday. The son of the writer who wrote that column
18 years ago is a member of the S.C. State Legislature. He
voted for the holiday with his Dad's support.
9. The allegation that we are hostile to Nelson Mandela.
Again, the column cited to support that allegation was
written over a decade ago. At the time, the idea that Mandela
had engaged in violence before his arrest and refused to
renounce violence as a precondition to release from jail was
widely reported. The views on Mandela expressed a decade ago
were conventional for conservative writers from all regions
of the country. In subsequent years, Mandela (who is now a
respected elder statesman) has changed his mind about
violence in the manner of Sadat and Begin.
10. The allegation that our magazine called Lincoln ``a
consummate liar * * *''.
The quote was taken from a speech given by the late Murray
Rothbard, a respected Jewish intellectual. He was president
emeritus of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, speaking at a
seminar on the cost of war. The introductory phrase left out
of Dr. Rothbard's remarks (which completely alters the
meaning) was this: ``Of course, Abraham Lincoln was a
politician which means he was a consummate liar, manipulator
* * *'' etc. The quote was followed by laughter from those in
attendance. In other words, it was a generic insult against
politicians intended to be humorous.
The ten slanders listed above are the major ones we have
seen in the media for the past six months. There may be
others. If so, please let us know so we will have an
opportunity to defend ourselves. Our concern is not only with
the reputation of our magazine but also with all the people
who have written for us or been interviewed by us over the
years. They are innocent bystanders in this scorched earth
campaign to defeat Sen. Ashcroft. Their reputations are very
important to them and to their families.
[[Page S907]]
To our dismay, these slanders have metastasized like an
aggressive cancer throughout the national news media. In
fact, months ago, we sent all of the above corrections to the
People for the American Way with a polite request that they
correct their web site. They never did. It truly is shocking
that there are groups so radically committed to their
political agenda that they are willing to destroy reputations
falsely in an effort to prevent the appointment to a person
they disagree with.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional
questions (803-254-3660).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise as a new Member of the Senate,
having listened to the arguments back and forth for several weeks on
the matter of John Ashcroft's nomination as Attorney General of the
United States.
As a new Member, some of the arguments made, various votes and so
forth are of interest, and there is some hyperbole to it.
But let me tell you that coming out of the real world and going
through a campaign and listening to people in Virginia and elsewhere, I
think if there is one message that the American people sent to our
country's leaders last November, it was this:
The politics of personal destruction in our country must end. Sadly,
there are some leaders of organized interest groups who have already
turned a deaf ear to that message, even as we in the Senate are working
so hard to move America forward in a bi-partisan manner.
Of course, I understand that some of my colleagues may disagree with
the philosophy of our new President and his choice for Attorney
General. However, when the Chief Executive picks his management team,
unless there is an extraordinary reason that would dictate otherwise,
this body should not stand in his way or obstruct. Political
opportunism is not an appropriate rationale for withholding consent for
a nominee.
When I served as Governor of Virginia, I was fortunate to have a
capable cabinet who assisted me in managing the day-to-day operation of
state government and advancing the agenda I established. While both the
House and Senate in Virginia are required to approve of the Governor's
selections, they have always, without exception, afforded the Governor
the ability to name the qualified individuals he recruits to lead the
team. No matter how distasteful the views of the nominee might be to
some on the other side of the aisle, except for a very very few
legislators, Republicans and Democrats alike have continuously
respectfully rallied to put the best interests of Virginia ahead of
political chicanery and that has effectively enabled Virginia's
Governors to do the job they were elected to do.
The federal government should be no different and John Ashcroft
deserves the support of the United States Senate for Attorney General.
He has proven himself a caring and capable leader during his many years
of public service. Elected by the people of Missouri five times, his is
a long record of achievement for all of the people he has represented.
It is incumbent on all of us to examine the totality of his record and
to not be drawn to a single contorted, concocted blemish on a sterling
30-year record. As we proceed toward a vote on his nomination, we must
understand what is in this man's heart, not what is displayed on the
television screen in a 15-second distorted charge from heavily funded
special interests.
Mr. President, the people of the United States expect principled
civil, debate here and in elections. In numerous elections all across
the U.S. last year, voters rejected the politics of division.
Virginians, like so many other Americans, want our country to heal
itself and to move beyond scare tactics and personal destruction.
We, here in the United States Senate, have the unique ability to
prove to Americans that this noble goal is achievable. Let's move
forward! I respectfully urge my colleagues to join together to rise to
a higher plane and vote to confirm the honorable John Ashcroft as
Attorney General of the United States.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong
support for the nomination of our distinguished former colleague, John
Ashcroft, to serve as Attorney General.
The debate we have been engaged in is not about Senator Ashcroft's
qualifications because they are not in question. He has a wealth of
experience and a record of exemplary public service that spans three
decades. Twenty years ago, I recommended him for Attorney General under
President Reagan, and I would like to place that letter into the Record
at the conclusion of my remarks. The intervening time has only made it
more clear that he should serve in this position. Before I had the
pleasure of working with him in the Senate and on the Judiciary
Committee, he served two terms as Missouri's Attorney General and
Governor. Senator Ashcroft is one of the most qualified people
nominated for this position in all my years of public service.
I recognize that some Senators disagree with some of the positions
that he has taken during his almost thirty years in public life. As I
said during his confirmation hearing, I hope the question will not be
whether we agree with him on every issue. That is a standard he cannot
meet for all of us. The President is entitled to some deference from
the Senate in selecting those who will carry out the President's
agenda.
In the Senate, what we can expect is that the Attorney General will
do his job and enforce all the laws, and Senator Ashcroft will. His
record of enforcing laws that he did not support while serving as
Missouri Attorney General should help prove it.
We should keep in mind that all Attorneys General are called upon to
enforce laws they do not support. The last Attorney General, Janet
Reno, opposed the death penalty. I was one of many senators who
strongly disagreed with her on this point, but we still supported her
quick confirmation.
During the extensive committee hearings recently, Senator Ashcroft
did not have much time to talk about issues which will occupy most of
his time as Attorney General, such as crime and drugs. In the Senate,
he was a leader in fighting crime and helping keep drugs out of the
hands of children. He also stood up for victim's rights. It should come
as no surprise that the law enforcement community strongly supports
him.
Some of the toughest criticism of Senator Ashcroft's record is simply
not warranted. For example, it was proper for him to oppose a judge-
imposed school desegregation plan in Kansas City called Missouri v.
Jenkins. In that case, the judge ordered a massive tax increase to pay
for his almost unlimited school improvements, which included a 2,000
square-foot planetarium, a 25-acre farm, a model United Nations, an art
gallery, movie editing rooms, and swimming pools. The plan was an
elaborate social experiment in the name of education, and it utterly
failed. Moreover, it established terrible legal precedent regarding the
power of federal judges. I have introduced legislation in every
Congress since to prohibit judges from being able to impose a tax
increase. Elected state officials should represent their constituents
and oppose activist federal judges like this, as long as they comply
with the court after the case ends, as John Ashcroft did.
On another matter, I believe it is highly unfortunate that some
outside special interests have gone beyond specific issues in their
attacks and have criticized ``Senator Ashcroft's identification with .
. . religious, right-wing extremism.'' This Senate should not tolerate
any effort to make a person's religious beliefs an issue in whether
they should serve in a high government position. As the Union of
Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wrote to the Senate, ``this
view has been the subtext for some of the criticism of Mr. Ashcroft. We
are confident that you will reject it, as you would any other form of
prejudice.''
Senator Ashcroft has not only received strong support from well-known
Christian organizations, such as the Christian Coalition, he has been
endorsed by organizations of various religious faiths, such as the
major Orthodox Jewish Organization, Agudath Israel of America. This is
a testament to what kind of person John Ashcroft is.
In fact, he should be praised for his deep religious convictions. It
helps explain many of his fine traits. He is a man of honesty and
integrity, and a person of strong moral character.
I am confident that he will serve with dedication and distinction as
the
[[Page S908]]
Nation's top law enforcement officer. America needs a man like Senator
Ashcroft to lead the Justice Department. I urge all of my colleagues to
look beyond partisan politics and support this exceptional candidate.
I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced earlier be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, November 17, 1980.
Mr. Edwin Meese III,
Office of the President-Elect,
Washington, DC.
Dear Ed: Among the more important appointments that
President-Elect Reagan soon will make is that of Attorney
General of the United States. In this regard, I want to bring
to your attention The Honorable John Ashcroft, presently
Attorney General of the State of Missouri.
John Ashcroft was elected the 38th Attorney General of
Missouri in 1976. He was just reelected to another term in
that office, demonstrating the trust that the people of
Missouri have in this very bright, very dedicated young man.
I first met John Ashcroft in 1976. At that time, I was
immediately impressed with him. More recently, as I traveled
around the country speaking on behalf of Governor Reagan, I
had the pleasure of seeing John again. In fact, he introduced
me on one such visit to Missouri to attend a Reagan-Bush
rally.
I consider John Ashcroft to be one of our more promising
young Republican leaders and believe that he represents the
kind of young but experienced talent that could be used well
in the Reagan Administration in the post of Attorney General.
I am submitting a packet of informational materials on
John. I hope that you will review them carefully and that you
will conclude, as I have, that John deserves to be at the top
of your list of nominees for the post of Attorney General.
If I can provide other, additional materials of assistance
to you in this regard, please let me know.
With kindest personal regards and best wishes,
Sincerely,
Strom Thurmond.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator John Ashcroft
for Attorney General, and will outline some sound business reasons for
this position.
Senator Ashcroft has proven himself the friend of American consumers,
investors, and businesses, especially in the high technology sector
which has driven much of the prosperity of the last long economic
expansion.
His potential leadership in the Department of Justice has been hailed
as especially good news by high tech businesses and investors, whose
retirement and pensions rely on the health of the technology stocks
that have recently taken a beating.
Indeed, James Lucier of Prudential Securities recently wrote to
investors,
Technology investors got their Christmas present three days
early on December 22 when President-elect George W. Bush
named . . . John Ashcroft as his choice to serve as Attorney
General . . . [W]e find it hard to imagine Bush choosing a
potential attorney general with better qualifications than
Ashcroft to restore investor confidence and dispel the more
extreme, valuation-depressing fears of political risk at a
time when Congress is set to take up a slate of complex
issues with ample potential to raise blood pressures among
the investor class.--Prudential Securities, ``Washington
Research, Washington World,'' January 3, 2001, p. 1.
In other words, according to some analysts, tech-sector investors who
have been worried about their wealth or retirement security because of
recent tech-stock losses can breath a little easier if John Ashcroft is
confirmed as Attorney General. With so many Americans now relying on
those investments, I think they need to understand that the partisan
extremists fighting Senator Ashcroft could be putting at risk many
Americans' economic and retirement security to satisfy their own
political interests.
His general approach of avoiding unnecessary regulation of and
litigation against business will help foster a positive economic
environment that is so important to all Americans.
Senator Ashcroft has also played a role in helping consumers enjoy
the benefits of technology. The same newsletter points out Ashcroft's
role as Attorney General in Missouri authoring and filing an amicus
brief joined by other state attorneys general supporting Sony
Corporation's contention that consumers had the right to ``time-shift''
television broadcasts by taping on their VCRs in the famous Betamax
Supreme Court case.
He has worked to support the development of the Internet, to avoid
taxes that would slow the growth of e-commerce; he has pushed to allow
consumers and Internet users to use strong encryption to protect their
privacy online, and to keep American companies at the forefront of
encryption and software development.
All in all, Senator Ashcroft's nomination and confirmation should be
a boon to our economy, to investors, our businesses, and consumers. I
would hope that consumers, investors, and all those who rely on a
strong economy will make their support of Senator Ashcroft known to
their Senators.
Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice to those
of my colleagues in support of the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft
for the position of Attorney General.
I have known John Ashcroft for more than a decade. I first met him
when I was mayor of Cleveland and he was Governor of Missouri, but I
really got to know him through our service together in the National
Governors' Association.
John was the chairman of the National Governors' Association, and I
had just joined the organization after being elected governor. My wife,
Janet, and I were able to get to know John and his wife Janet on a
personal basis.
I could see almost immediately that John was a man who was dedicated
to making a difference, and he wanted me to help in setting the NGA's
education agenda.
John appointed me to chair the NGA Bipartisan Taskforce on School
Readiness. I will always be grateful for that appointment, because I
quickly realized that the task force could serve as a forum in which to
``air out'' new ideas on how best to help our kids learn. From that
task force, we were able to develop a Whole School Initiative.
I admired the leadership role John took at NGA, and our work together
helped me to get to know John Ashcroft.
Of course, nothing will help you get to know someone better than
going fishing with them, and John and I have spent hours together
fishing. I have spent enough time with him to get to know what is in
his heart, and I can honestly say that he is one of the most honorable
men I have ever met. He is, in every sense of the word, a gentleman.
We in the Senate have been given a remarkable obligation by our
Founding Fathers to provide the President of the United States our
``advice and consent'' on certain Presidential nominees for Cabinet
offices and other positions of governmental importance.
It is a duty that all of us in this Chamber take seriously.
Historically, members of the United States Senate have given the
President--Republican or Democrat--the benefit of the doubt when it
comes to the confirmation of a Cabinet official.
On the rare occasion when a nominee fails, it is because the
nominee's qualifications are lacking, or because a flaw in his or her
character exempts them from successfully carrying out the duties of the
office in which they would serve.
However, in the case of President Bush's Attorney General nominee,
John Ashcroft, there has been a steady stream of detractors who are
trying to cast doubt on the character of John Ashcroft or misconstrue
his record of accomplishments. I would like to say that those of us in
this body who have worked with John Ashcroft, know the type of man he
truly is.
In my personal relationship with John, and in my evaluation of his
ability to serve as Attorney General, I have seen only an individual
with impeccable qualifications and unquestionable character.
There is no doubt in my mind that John Ashcroft possesses the
integrity and the experience necessary to carry out the duties of
Attorney General. We all know his biography by now--elected for two
terms to serve as the Attorney General for the state of Missouri and
elected for two terms to serve as Governor of Missouri, and then
elected to serve as United States Senator from Missouri.
It is this record of public service that has made John Ashcroft the
most qualified individual ever to be nominated to be Attorney General.
Just look at some of our recent Attorneys General--Janet Reno, a
prosecutor;
[[Page S909]]
Dick Thornburgh, a governor; Ed Meese, a district attorney.
Of the 67 persons who have served in the office of Attorney General
in the history of our nation, only one--John Ashcroft--has served as
state attorney general of his state, and U.S. Senator--and only a
handful have held two of these three offices.
I might add that in each of the responsible positions he has held, he
has served the people of Missouri with distinction.
What is interesting, though, is how the special interest groups have
``taken the gloves off'' in their opposition to John. They are working
overtime to demonize Senator Ashcroft, trying to paint him as unfit to
hold public office.
But, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that the citizens of
Missouri elected John Ashcroft 5 times to statewide office.
The John Ashcroft that the interest groups are characterizing is not
the John Ashcroft we all know, and in my view, he has been the victim
of a vicious character assassination, the likes of which I have not
seen in years.
This is just wrong.
This visceral opposition is being orchestrated by groups that I have
to believe are making tons of money in their fundraising efforts by
using John Ashcroft as a lighting rod.
For example, some have raised the accusation that he is a racist
because of his opposition to Ronnie White's nomination.
John Ashcroft did speak against Ronnie White in a convincing way.
John did have some influence over my decision to vote against Ronnie
White, but I had no idea he was an African American. That was never
even an issue in our discussions over the nomination of Ronnie White,
and I want everyone to understand that.
Anyone who knows my record knows that I do not tolerate racism or
insensitivity to others, and I have no patience for individuals who
espouse such views.
In fact, in the more than ten years I have known John Ashcroft, I
have never heard a word uttered from him that indicated any
insensitivity to any minority groups. To the contrary, his
accomplishments reflect a real level of support for the African
American community.
John Ashcroft signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute into law.
He signed into law the bill establishing a Martin Luther King, Jr.,
holiday in Missouri. He appointed the first African-American woman to
the Missouri Court of Appeals.
He led the fight to save Lincoln University, founded by African-
American Civil War veterans--something that he and I have in common,
given my work to save Central State University, a historically black
university in Ohio. John also established an award in the name of
renowned scientist, George Washington Carver.
He also has been a leader in the opposition to racial profiling,
convening the only Senate hearing on the subject to date. He voted to
confirm 26 of 27 African American judicial appointees nominated by
President Clinton that came to the Senate floor.
John Ashcroft has worked with African Americans. He has appointed
African Americans when he was Governor. He has worked on issues of
importance to African Americans. That's why I cannot understand all
this talk that John Ashcroft is somehow a racist.
Does the Senate honestly think that the good people of Missouri would
elect a racist? Do we honestly think John Ashcroft could have possibly
fooled the people of the ``Show-Me State'' 5 separate times?
John Ashcroft looks at his fellow human beings as in the image and
likeness of God. Yes, he is a Christian, and he believes in the Two
Great Commandments--love of God, and love of fellow man--and he follows
the Golden Rule, but those traits are not--and should never be--
disqualifying traits.
I have no question about what is in this man's heart, and I know that
he will be impeccably impartial in carrying out his responsibilities.
In fact, John Ashcroft will be scrupulous in carrying out the
responsibilities of his office.
Even with John's integrity, character and good sense, probably the
loudest complaints about him seem to be from those individuals who
believe that John will ignore or even seek to overturn laws he
personally does not like. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Throughout his many years of public service, John Ashcroft has been a
sworn defender of the laws of the people--all of the people--and his
record shows that he has not allowed his personal views to interfere in
the pursuit of his duties.
As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft strictly enforced laws
that differed from his own views, including such items as: firearms--he
determined, under Missouri law, that prosecuting attorneys could not
carry concealed weapons; abortion--he determined, under the law, that
hospital records on the number of abortions performed must remain
confidential, and, he determined, under the law, that a death
certificate was not legally required for fetuses under 20 weeks; and
church and state--he determined, under Missouri law, that public funds
were not available for private and religious schools even though
federal grants permitted it, and he determined, under the law, that
religious materials could not be distributed in public schools.
I believe we all have faced laws or responsibilities that we must
carry out that we may not necessarily agree with. I did so when I was
Governor because I took an oath to uphold the law. So did John
Ashcroft.
For those who are not inclined to support the nomination of John
Ashcroft, I need only refer to his testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee. Senator Ashcroft gave his assurance--his word--
that as Attorney General he will uphold the law, including laws he may
personally disagree with.
The fact that he has his faith is one of the reasons why John
Ashcroft has upheld the law and why he will uphold the law--because he
has character, because he has principles, because he has a foundation,
because he has roots and because he has grounding.
I think in our assessment of John, all we need to do is look at our
colleague, Senator Joseph Lieberman. Part of the reason why Senator
Lieberman is where he is in life is due to his profound faith. He
abides by his faith and it impacts on decisions he makes in the Senate
and in his life.
There are many other members of this chamber who I believe are
exactly the same; with their faith at the base of who they are, whether
they are Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or whatever their religion.
It is that faith that builds the character and builds the individual.
It is what has made John Ashcroft.
And I urge all of my colleagues to read an article written by one of
Senator Ashcroft's former staff members, Tevi Troy, for the New
Republic online. Mr. Troy, who is an Orthodox Jew, explains how faith
has influenced John Ashcroft's deep respect for other religions, and
how faith has shaped John Ashcroft to be the man he is today.
In my family--and I would imagine in most families as well--when
we're getting to know someone, we subconsciously subject them to what I
call the ``kitchen test.'' Basically, the kitchen test is: is this
person someone I would feel comfortable enough to bring to my home, to
sit at my dinner table, with my family?
John Ashcroft is someone I would be honored to have in my home, at my
dinner table, with my family. He is a good solid man.
Based on his record, John Ashcroft is fit in every way to be the
Attorney General. He is a man of integrity, and I am completely
confident that not only will he be fair and impartial in the
administration of justice, but that he will insist that every employee
at the Department of Justice do the same. He sets high standards for
people.
John Ashcroft's experience is more than enough to qualify him for the
role as the nation's ``top cop,'' but the added bonus to his
achievements is the fact that he is a man of character, and a man who
believes that the law is the law, and not something with which to
manipulate policy.
Though some of my colleagues may not agree with his personal views, I
urge them to look beyond their personal prejudices and look at John's
record, his character, his integrity and his experience and give
President Bush the man he wants to serve as Attorney General of the
United States.
I will vote in favor of the nomination of John Ashcroft to be United
States
[[Page S910]]
Attorney General, and I sincerely urge my colleagues to give him their
full support as well.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my thoughts on
the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be the United States
Attorney General.
One of the first issues I faced as a new Senator in 1989 was the
controversial nomination of former Senator John Tower to be Secretary
of Defense. As this was the first time I was faced with the Senate's
constitutional ``advise and consent'' role, it was incumbent upon me to
learn more about this important role through study and through
conversations with my fellow Senators. It was also important to devise
a standard to evaluate Presidential nominations so as to treat nominees
of both Republican and Democratic Presidents with consistency and
fairness.
I came to the conclusion that my general policy should be to support
nominations made by a President, provided that the individual is
appropriately qualified and capable of performing the duties of the
position. A President is entitled to a Cabinet of his or her own
choosing unless a nominee is proven unethical or unqualified. I would
not oppose a nominee just because I disagree with them on a policy
matter.
For judicial branch nominations, however, I apply a different
standard. I have made this distinction between executive and judicial
nominees throughout my Senate career. For example, during the
consideration of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court in
1991, I argued that:
By no means does a president, even one of my own party,
have the right to pick virtually anyone he wants who meets
minimal qualifications with respect to character, legal
ability and judicial temperament. This is not a pass-fail
test. In my mind, such a process is entirely proper for
appointees to the executive branch of government. The
president should be given wide latitude in selecting his
Cabinet secretaries and key agency personnel. But under the
Constitution, such deference is inappropriate in the
confirmation of Supreme Court justices.
I used this policy in evaluating Presidential nominations throughout
the Bush Presidency and the subsequent Clinton Presidency, and will
continue to use this standard to evaluate the nominations put forth by
our current President. In order to determine a nominee's qualifications
and capabilities, I review the statements of nominees, follow the
hearings conducted on a nominee, and listen to the opinions expressed
by my colleagues. I have done all of these in the case of this
nomination and I am here today to express my support for the
confirmation of John Ashcroft to be the next United States Attorney
General.
A review of Senator Ashcroft's record shows that he is qualified to
serve in the position of United States Attorney General. He has a long
and distinguished tenure in public service, serving as Missouri's
Attorney General, Governor and Senator. During his terms as Governor,
John Ashcroft served as Chairman of the Republican Governors'
Association and as Chairman of the National Governors' Association. In
addition, during his tenure in the Senate he served on the Senate
Judiciary Committee and chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on
the Constitution.
Senator Ashcroft is also capable of performing the duties of United
States Attorney General as he is a fair and judicious individual. Some
have raised questions concerning his ability to enforce laws he has
opposed in the past, but during a meeting I had with him he assured me
that as Attorney General he would work to uphold the laws of this
nation, including those with which he disagrees. I believe that these
qualities prove Senator Ashcroft to be capable of performing the duties
of Attorney General and will serve him well in this role.
As anyone can tell from our records, Senator Ashcroft and I have very
different opinions on many important issues, including abortion, civil
and gay rights, and environmental protection. I will continue in my
role as a Senator from Vermont to support legislation upholding the Roe
v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, protecting access to clinics that
perform abortion services, combating employment discrimination and hate
crimes based on sexual orientation, and protecting our environment. I
will also closely follow the decisions Senator Ashcroft makes as
Attorney General and speak out when I feel those decisions are wrong.
However, while we may have different opinions on many issues, in my
mind that alone is not enough to disqualify a nominee.
____________________