Congressional Record, Volume 147 Issue 14 (Thursday, February 1, 2001)

[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 14 (Thursday, February 1, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S933-S981]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will resume
consideration of the Ashcroft nomination, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of John Ashcroft, of
Missouri, to be Attorney General.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 9:15 shall be under the control of the majority party.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Under the previous order, the time until 9:30 shall be under the
control of the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, after reviewing his testimony before the
Judiciary Committee and studying his long public record, I cannot
support the nomination of John Ashcroft to be United States Attorney
General.
This is not an easy decision for any of us. We have all served in
this body with former Senator Ashcroft. I cannot say that I was a
personal friend of his. We never associated socially or anything like
that, but I did have dealings with Senator Ashcroft, as we all do
around here, on matters of legislative importance.
Quite frankly, in my dealings with him, I always found him to be
courteous to me and my staff. I found that we could work together even
though we did not have the same views, perhaps, on certain pieces of
legislation. I found

[[Page S934]]

that we worked together in the spirit of compromise here on the Senate
floor.
When John Ashcroft's name was first announced as the nominee for
Attorney General, I, of course, thought to myself, he certainly would
not have been my first choice, but then again George Bush was not my
first choice for President. But I recognized that Presidents should
have fairly large leeway to have the people around them they want.
But, again, we also have an obligation, a constitutional obligation,
in the advise and consent clause in the U.S. Constitution to look over
those individuals, to give careful scrutiny to those individuals, to
make sure that we, as a body collectively--at least by majority vote--
are able to believe that nominated officials will have the honesty, the
character, and wherewithal to carry out their duties and to serve all
of the American people well.
After long and difficult deliberation, I have come to the conclusion
that there are significant questions raised on John Ashcroft's fitness
to be our Nation's chief law enforcement officer.
First and foremost, I have serious concerns about the misleading
statements Mr. Ashcroft made during the confirmation hearings.
As we all know, Senator Ashcroft strongly opposed the nomination of
Mr. Jim Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg. Jim Hormel, a distinguished
lawyer, successful businessman, educator, philanthropist a scion of our
famous midwestern families. We all have heard of Hormel Meats. We
probably had Hormel bacon in the morning, things such as that. They are
a fine family who came from Iowa and Minnesota. Mr. Hormel, of course,
has taken up his residency, as of late, in San Francisco, I don't know
how many years ago, but some years ago. Prior to that, he had been Dean
of Students at the University of Chicago Law School.
I have known Mr. Hormel for many years. I consider him a friend. As I
said, not only is he a great lawyer, businessman, educator, and
philanthropist, but he is also an outstanding family man.
In 1998, Mr. Ashcroft said he opposed Mr. Hormel's nomination because
he had--and I quote John Ashcroft's own words--``actively supported the
gay lifestyle.''
Further, Mr. Ashcroft said that a person's sexual conduct--and I
quote again Mr. Ashcroft's own words--``is within what could be
considered and what is eligible for consideration'' for ambassadorial
nominees.
However, in his testimony just 2 weeks ago, Mr. Ashcroft denied his
opposition had anything to do with Jim Hormel's sexual orientation. He
said he opposed him because, again, he had known Jim Hormel for a long
time, going back to the days when Hormel had--and I quote again John
Ashcroft--``recruited him'' for law school.
Mr. Ashcroft said he based his opposition to Jim Hormel being
Ambassador to Luxembourg on the totality of Hormel's record. I spoke
with Ambassador Hormel just last week about this. He said he had never
had any contact with Senator Ashcroft, not when he was dean of students
at the University of Chicago Law School and not since he was nominated
in 1997. He did not recruit Mr. Ashcroft for law school. As dean of
students, of course--and there are a lot of students there--Mr. Hormel
was honest; he said: I can't remember. Maybe when he was a student, I
might have met him. I might have talked to him. I might have said
something to a group of students. He may have come into my office for
something. But I have no recollection of that.
Furthermore, Mr. Hormel emphatically stated he did not ``recruit''
John Ashcroft for Chicago Law School. When he was nominated in 1997,
Mr. Hormel repeatedly tried to meet with John Ashcroft to talk to him.
Even if I oppose someone, I at least give them the courtesy to come in
and make their case. I have always made that policy, because maybe
there is something I haven't heard or something I would look at
differently. John Ashcroft would not even meet with Jim Hormel.
Mr. Hormel did get a recess appointment from President Clinton,
served well, and was distinguished in his post in Luxembourg. I asked
people at the State Department in charge of that area how he performed,
and they said extremely well. They said that he had conducted his
position in the best interests of the United States and as a
distinguished Ambassador. Again, sexual orientation should not have any
bearing on a person's fitness for that job or any other job.
John Ashcroft also testified that he has never asked job applicants
about their sexual orientation. But in a recent Washington Post
article, a health care expert, Paul Offner, who had interviewed for a
cabinet post under then Governor Ashcroft, remembers differently.
Offner, who is now part of the Georgetown University faculty, recalled
that Governor Ashcroft's first question to him was whether or not he
had the same sexual preferences as most men. At the time it happened,
Offner, also told others about the interview question.
If this is true, this does not seem to be the kind of individual who
should serve as Attorney General of the United States of America.
I am also disturbed by how, as an elected official--namely, U.S.
Senator--Mr. Ashcroft used unseemly political tactics, including the
reckless and unwarranted destruction of a judicial nominee's
reputation, a sitting judge's reputation, for his own political
benefit. Senator Ashcroft led the campaign to block the Federal
judicial nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White in
order to gain political points in his reelection bid against then-
sitting Gov. Mel Carnahan. Ashcroft on this very floor referred to the
distinguished and accomplished judge as ``pro-criminal and activist,''
a man with a ``tremendous bent toward criminal activity.''
Mr. Ashcroft stood on this floor--I remember listening to him, and I
couldn't believe someone actually said this about a sitting State
supreme court justice from his own State--that Judge White had ``a
tremendous bent toward criminal activity.''
I don't know Ronnie White. I have met him only once. But after I
looked over his record it seemed to me that what Mr. Ashcroft was
saying was not only false, it was defamatory. And it is behavior
unworthy of a U.S. Attorney General. It is one thing in a political
campaign to take on your political opponent and hit him with tough
words in tough races, but you can fight back. I have been hit pretty
hard in some of my political campaigns. But when the election is over,
you get over it because at least you are able to fight back. Here was a
Senator using the privileges of the floor of the Senate to personally
defame the character of a sitting Supreme Court justice of the State of
Missouri when that judge had no ability to fight back.

Finally Mr. White did get his day, sort of, in court before the
Judiciary Committee. I commend Senator Leahy for making sure Ronnie
White got his day here to show that he is a distinguished justice, that
he has absolutely the opposite of a bent toward criminal activity. He
also strongly believes in upholding the law, ensuring that every
person, no matter how low that person is, no matter how heinous the
crime--that every person has competent representation and a fair trial.
Mr. Ashcroft's own words and what he did to Justice White make me
wonder if Mr. Ashcroft thinks every person, no matter how low, no
matter how heinous the crime, no matter how much you disagree with that
person, is entitled to competent representation and a fair trial.
I also have concerns about John Ashcroft's testimony about the
desegregation court order in Missouri when he was attorney general and
governor. John Ashcroft said that Missouri did nothing wrong. But I
think most people would agree that upholding segregation and blatantly
defying a federal court order is the very definition of wrong. This was
in the 1980s, not the 1950s.
Also while Governor, Mr. Ashcroft appointed the election boards in
St. Louis County and in St. Louis city. The county, an affluent area,
84 percent white, votes mainly Republican; the city, less affluent, 47
percent black, votes mainly Democratic. During that period of time, the
county hired 1,500 volunteers, such as out of the League of Women
Voters, for training, for registration of voters. During that same
period of time, the city board trained zero because the city election
board, appointed by John Ashcroft, refused to follow the policy on
volunteers used by his appointed board in the county and

[[Page S935]]

throughout the state. The State legislature saw this anomaly and passed
two bills in 1988 and 1989 to require the city to do the same as the
county and the state. Governor Ashcroft vetoed both of those bills.
I am also troubled by parts of John Ashcroft's record which reflects
poorly on his commitment to seeking justice for all Americans. Despite
his statements to the contrary, I am simply not convinced that John
Ashcroft will diligently and thoroughly uphold all of our laws.
I am particularly concerned about John Ashcroft's statements and
actions regarding reproductive rights. Throughout his career, he has
been a staunch opponent of the right of women to make their own
reproductive decisions. He even wrote legislation to criminalize
abortion, even in the cases of rape and incest. Yet during his recent
testimony, John Ashcroft told committee members he believes that Roe v.
Wade is the law of the land--and he would not try to overturn it. He
even stated, ``No woman should fear being threatened or coerced in
seeking constitutionally protected health services.'' How are America's
women supposed to believe John Ashcroft in his recent testimony on a
woman's right to choose when he had repeatedly stated during his
political career that there is no constitutional right to choose and
that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided? I'm not sure he can.
I am not sure anyone can simply switch off decades of hostility to
reproductive rights, intolerance towards homosexuals, and other views,
and then fairly and aggressively enforce the laws--he deeply believes
are wrong.
As I expect, John Ashcroft will be confirmed despite my vote. I hope
they will prove me wrong.
I thank the President.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of
editorials and material regarding the nomination be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Ashcroft Is the Wrong Man for Justice

John Ashcroft, the man who would be attorney general, is
quite a deft backpedaler. Just a few weeks ago, he was a
right-wing ideologue dedicated to banning abortion and
fighting the civil-rights tide. Now he says he's eager to
enforce the laws he hates. So which Ashcroft are we getting--
last year's true believer or a Bush-era compromiser?
It's impossible to tell, and maybe it doesn't matter.
Whether Ashcroft is an extremist in centrist garb or some
sort of changeling, Americans have reason to worry. They
needn't fret because of Ashcroft's conservative leanings;
anyone President Bush sends to Justice is bound to lean that
way. They should worry instead about Ashcroft's integrity. As
last week's hearings evinced, he has less of it than his
backers like to think.
For starters, there's the small matter of the truth.
Ashcroft isn't telling it. His declarations before the Senate
contradict his record. Some of his equivocation is penny-
ante--such as his claim that he'd never have spoken so fondly
of proslavery confederate leaders to Southern Partisan
magazine back in 1998 if he'd known the rag favored
slaveholding itself.
But other Ashcroft remarks are bold-faced revisionism: His
claim that he'd been ``found guilty of no wrong'' and
faithfully heeded all court orders in a St. Louis
desegregation case is false; the record shows Ashcroft
habitually flouted court orders. His insistence that he
derailed a federal judgeship for Missouri Supreme Court
Justice Ronnie White for principled reasons is belied by the
stealth, slurs and distortions Ashcroft used to achieve his
end.
An archaeologist could find a small heap of twisted facts
in last week's hearings, and with them many hints that
Ashcroft isn't the sort of man who ought to be running the
Justice Department. But this would be true even if Ashcroft
had been forthright about his past.
The central question of integrity involves the way
Ashcroft's mind works. What are senators to make of a man who
has spent his life expressing extreme convictions--and who
now says he won't lift a finger to fulfill them? They can
doubt him, which would be natural enough. The confirmation
process is generally regarded as a ceremonial gauntlet to be
run, not a serious test of honor. Dissembling is almost part
of the game, and it's up to the Senate to separate the clever
wheat from the lying chaff.
Perhaps Ashcroft falls into the second category. Perhaps
what he's saying isn't what he plans to do once he's got the
Justice Department under his thumb. The prospect is haunting,
and is reason enough to reject Ashcroft's nomination.
But what if Ashcroft is telling the truth--or at least
thinks he is? It could very well be, as the man himself said,
that Ashcroft really plans to enforce every last law of the
land whether he likes it or not. If that's the case, doubts
about Ashcroft should double. It's worth wondering about a
man who has spent his life vowing to topple the laws he now
says he'll enforce. Why should he want to do this? How will
he manage it? How can he possibly muster the spirit to do it
well?
An attorney general isn't just an attorney. He's also a
visionary, a keeper of the flame of American justice. He must
believe with all he has not just in the sanctity of ``the
law,'' but in the laws themselves. A quibble with a statute
here and there isn't enough to disqualify a seeker of the
office. But a nominee who has raged all his life against the
guiding lights of American law--against the promises of the
Constitution itself--is not a fit flame-keeper.
____

John Ashcroft Should Be Rejected as Attorney General

It was not in the United States' best interests for George
W. Bush, the incoming president who vowed to unite the
country after a bruising and narrowly decided election, to
nominate for attorney general a man of such extreme beliefs
as John Ashcroft of Missouri.
While that bell cannot be unrung, the Senate should not
accommodate or be party to so drastic a move away from the
political center that the country is so comfortable with now.
In this unique case, senators--among them Washington
state's Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell--should forego their
customary deference to a president's Cabinet choice and
reject Ashcroft.
Not because of his beliefs. Because of his record as a two-
term state attorney general, the public office he has held
that most closely resembles the one he seeks. As the nation's
chief attorney, he would lead the Justice Department, a
mammoth government agency that has been described as being at
the front line of battles over emotional social issues like
civil rights, abortion, crime and the selection of federal
judges.
Personally, and as a governor and member of Congress,
Ashcroft had every right to vociferously oppose abortion,
even in the case of rape and incest; seek to limit government
funds for family planning, and work to defeat modest gun
control regulations.
In advance of Ashcroft's hearing before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, we posed a question to the senators who
would be asked to confirm the nomination: Could they be
persuaded that Ashcroft would enforce the laws as they are,
not as he would like them to be?
It is clear from the resulting testimony and Ashcroft's
long public record in Missouri that the answer is likely to
be no. As Missouri attorney general, Ashcroft was not
regularly even-handed or moderate on at least a couple of
thorny social issues that remain front and center in the
country's psyche--women's reproductive rights and civil
rights.
He attempted on several occasions to severely restrict a
woman's legal right to choose an abortion by seeking out
cases in which that was not the main issue and forcing them
upward through various layers of appeals to the U.S. Supreme
Court.
The end goal was to overturn Roe vs. Wade. His official
record invites serious questions whether he would (1) do the
same on the federal stage and (2) vigorously enforce existing
laws restricting violent and obstructive demonstrations at
abortion clinics by anti-abortion opponents.
Aside from Ashcroft's major misstatement during the hearing
about the culpability of the state in a long-running school
desegregation case, the record paints a picture of an
attorney general who obstructed the cause of equal education
for children of all races.
When a federal judge ordered the state and city of St.
Louis to submit plans for voluntary desegregation of the
public schools, Ashcroft balked. The court finally threatened
to hold the state in contempt if it did not meet the
deadline: ``The court can draw only one conclusion--the state
has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the
authority of the court.''
Moreover, Gary Orfield, a Harvard University education
professor and leading expert on school desegregation, said
Ashcroft was the ``most resistant individual'' he encountered
in more than 30 federal court cases on the issue.
The record demonstrates Ashcroft is not a uniter, but a
divider--something Bush and the country cannot afford in
these early stages of healing.
Within the ranks of the National Association of Attorneys
General are 17 people who share Bush's political affiliation,
including moderates such as Mike Fisher of Pennsylvania and
Carla Stovall of Kansas. We submit either would be a more
suitable U.S. attorney general than John Ashcroft.
____

[From the New York Times, Saturday, Jan. 20, 2001]

After the Ball Is Over

(By Frank Rich)

Presidents come and go, but a Washington cliche is forever.
Today we'll be lectured repeatedly on the poignancy of a
president's exit (not that he's actually going anywhere), the
promise of a new president's arrival, and on the glory of our
Republic. We'll be reminded that there are no tanks in the
streets when America changes leaders--only cheesy floats and
aural assault weapons in the guise of high school bands.
All true, and yet at this inaugural more than any other in
any American's lifetime

[[Page S936]]

there is a cognitive dissonance between the patriotic
sentiment and the reality. More Americans voted for the
candidate who lost the election than the one who won. The
Washington Post/ABC News poll says that only 41 percent
believe the winner ``has a mandate to carry out the agenda''
of his campaign. Even before the Florida fracas, the
country's black population rejected the republican candidate
(who assiduously tried to attract black voters) by a larger
margin than any since Barry Goldwater (who had voted against
the Civil Rights Act). And now come calamities ignored in a
campaign that dithered about prescription drugs, tax cuts and
schools: an energy melt-down in the nation's biggest state,
and a possible economic downturn.
George W. Bush seems like an earnest man. When he says he
has come to Washington to ``change the tone'' and ``unite,
not divide,'' I don't doubt his sincerity. But so far his
actions are those of another entitled boomer who is utterly
blind to his own faults. He narcissistically believes things
to be so (and his intentions pure) because he says they are.
Change the tone? As Clinton-Gore raised $33 million largely
from their corporate masters for their first inaugural, so
Bush-Cheney have solicited $35 million from, among others,
the securities firms that want to get their hands on your
privatized Social Security retirement accounts and the
pharmaceutical companies that want to protect the prices of
prescription drugs. And already foreign money is making its
entrance--in the form of a legal but unsavory $100,000
contribution from the deputy prime minister of Lebanon,
channeled through his son.
Now comes the news--reported by the columnist Robert
Novak--that John Huang, the convicted Clinton-Gore fund-
raiser, repeatedly took the Fifth Amendment in November when
questioned in court about his alleged fiscal ties to
Republicans, including Senator Mitch McConnell, the No. 1
opponent of the John McCain crusade for campaign finance
reform that Mr. Bush has yet to credibly embrace. (Mr.
McConnell is also the husband of Mr. Bush's latest labor
secretary-designate, Elaine Chao.)
Change the tone? Hard as it is to imagine that anyone could
choose an attorney general as polarizing as the last, Mr.
Bush has outdone himself. With a single cabinet pick he has
reproduced the rancor that attended the full Clinton legal
troika of Reno, Hubbell & Foster.
There's been much debate about whether John Ashcroft is a
racist--a hard case to make against a man whose history of
playing the race card to pander to voters is balanced by his
record of black judicial appointments. But there has not been
nearly enough debate about whether our incipient chief legal
officer has lied under oath to the Senate.
Perhaps his seeming fudging and reversals of his previous
stands on Roe v. Wade and gun control can be rationalized as
clever lawyerese. Perhaps some of his evasions can be
dismissed as a politicians' typical little white lies--and I
do mean white--such as when he denies he knew that a magazine
he favored with an interview, Southern Partisan, espoused the
slaveholding views of Southern partisans. But it took a
bolder kind of dissembling to contradict his own paper trail
in public office. After he swore that the state of Missouri
``had been found guilty of no wrong'' in a landmark St. Louis
desegregation case and that ``both as attorney general and as
governor'' of the state he had followed ``all'' court orders
in the matter, The Washington Post needed only a day to
report the truth: A federal district judge in fact ruled that
the state was a ``primary constitutional wrongdoer'' in the
matter and threatened to hold Mr. Ashcroft in contempt for
his ``continual delay and failure to comply'' with court
orders.
Mr. Ashcroft may have left even more land mines in his
testimony about the businessman, philanthropist and former
law school official James Hormel, the Clinton ambassador
to Luxembourg whose nomination he had fought. Asked by
Patrick Leahy, the Judiciary chairman, if he had opposed
Mr. Hormel because Mr. Hormel is gay, Mr. Aschroft
answered, ``I did not.'' Then why did he oppose Mr.
Hormel? ``Well, frankly, 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,''
Mr. Ashcroft testified, before adding a cryptic answer he
would repeat two times as Mr. Leahy pressed him: ``I made
a judgment that it would be ill advised to make him
ambassador based on the totality of the record.''
The implication of this creepy testimony is that Mr.
Ashcroft, having known the 68-year-old Mr. Hormel for
decades, had some goods on him. The use of the word
``recruit'' by Mr. Ashcroft also had a loaded connotation in
context, since it's common for those on the religious right
who argue (as Mr. Ashcroft does) that sexual orientation is a
choice to accuse homosexuals of ``recruiting'' the young.
No senator followed up Mr. Ashcroft's testimony about Mr.
Hormel, who, unlike another subject of an Ashcroft character
assassination, Judge Ronnie White, was not invited to testify
at the hearings. I located Mr. Hormel by phone in Washington,
where he had traveled for final meetings at the State
Department after concluding his service in Luxembourg. He
strongly disputed Mr. Ashcroft's version of events.
``I don't recall ever recruiting anybody for the University
of Chicago,'' Mr. Hormel said in our conversation Wednesday
night. As an assistant dean involved with admissions, he
says, he might have met Mr. Ashcroft in passing while touring
campuses to give talks to prospective law school applicants,
or in later office visits about grades or curriculum. But,
Mr. Hormel quickly adds, he doesn't recall ``a single
conversation with John Ashcroft.'' Nor has Mr. Hormel seen
him in the three decades since; Mr. Ashcroft didn't have the
courtesy to respond to repeated requests for a meeting during
Mr. Hormel's own confirmation process and didn't bother to
attend Mr. Hormel's hearing before opposing him.
``I think he made insinuations which would lead people to
have a complete misunderstanding of my very limited
relationship with him,'' Mr. Hormel says. ``I fear that there
was an inference he created that he knew me and based on that
knowledge he came to the conclusion I wasn't fit to become an
ambassador. I find that very disturbing. He kept repeating
the phrase `the totality of the record.' I don't know what
record he's talking about. I don't know of anything I've ever
done that's been called unethical.'' The record that Mr.
Ashcroft so casually smeared includes an appointment to the
U.N. in 1996 that was confirmed by the Foreign Relations
Committee on which Mr. Ashcroft then sat.
Since Mr. Bush could easily have avoided the divisiveness
of the Ashcroft choice by picking an equally conservative
attorney general with less baggage, some of his opponents
will start calling him ``stupid'' again. That seems unfair.
Mr. Bush's real problem is arrogance--he thinks we are
stupid. He thinks that if he vouches incessantly for the
``good heart'' of a John Ashcroft, that settles it. It
hasn't. Polls showed an even split on the nomination well
before the hearings. He thinks that if he fills the stage
with black faces at a white convention and poses incessantly
with black schoolkids and talks about being the ``inclusive''
president ``of everybody,'' he'll persuade minority voters
he's compassionate. He hasn't.
George W. Bush likes to boast that he doesn't watch TV. He
didn't even tune in as the nation's highest court debated his
fate, leaving his princely retainers to bring him bulletins.
Maybe it's time for him to start listening; he might even
learn why so many Americans aren't taking his word for John
Ashcroft's ``heart.'' I don't doubt that our new president
will give a poetic Inaugural Address today, but if he remains
out of touch with the country, he will not be able to govern
tomorrow.
____

[From the Austin American Statesman, Jan. 19, 2001]

Ashcroft's Pledge To Enforce the Law

President-elect George W. Bush missed a chance to select a
uniter to heal divisions wrought by the bruising presidential
election when he chose John Ashcroft to be his nominee for
attorney general.
The Senate Judiciary Committee's hearings this week on
Capitol Hill have exposed the grave reservations some
senators and witnesses have about Ashcroft's fitness for the
role of guardian of our country's laws and all Americans'
constitutional rights because of his staunchly conservative
record. At the same time, the hearings have galvanized
Ashcroft's supporters, who praise him as a man of character,
principle and honesty, a lawyer who would bring ample
leadership experience to the job.
Early indications are that Ashcroft will win Senate
confirmation. He was, after all, a member of the Senate,
having lost re-election in November. His colleagues know him
well and would need extraordinary evidence to sink his
nomination. It is customary for senators to give deference to
a president in selecting his team to reflect his views. As
any boss would attest, that tradition makes sense in building
a loyal team, but so does the Senate's valuable role in
providing confirmation.
The Judiciary Committee is carefully probing Ashcroft's
record as Missouri's attorney general for two terms, governor
for two terms and senator for one. Ironically, the man from
the Show Me State is being grilled to tell us how he will
perform as U.S. attorney general. While his record is mixed--
reflecting troubling stands on desegregation, gun control and
abortion rights--his words to the committee offer reassurance
that can only be tested with time.
The attorney general serves as the country's chief law
enforcement officer, vets federal judge nominees, decides
which laws to challenge, enforces civil-rights laws and
safeguards liberties, including women's reproductive rights.
In his most important pledge, he told the committee his
personal beliefs would not interfere with the job he will be
sworn to do.
``I understand that being attorney general means enforcing
the laws as they are written, not enforcing my own personal
preference,'' he told the senators. ``I pledge to you that
strict enforcement of the rule of law will be the cornerstone
of justice.''
Ashcroft is a fierce opponent of the U.S. Supreme Court's
landmark Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. He
supports a constitutional amendment that would prohibit
abortions even in cases of rape or incest and would allow
them only if the mother's life were in danger. In the
hearings, he said he would not seek to challenge Roe v. Wade
and viewed the abortion decisions as ``the settled law of the
land.'' He emphasized he knows

[[Page S937]]

``the difference between an enactment role and an enforcement
role. During my time as a public official, I have followed
the law.''
He defended his fight against landmark desegregation cases
in St. Louis and Kansas City, saying he had never opposed
integration. But The Washington Post reported Thursday that
court documents show the state of Missouri was labeled by a
federal district judge as a ``primary constitutional
wrongdoer'' in perpetuating segregated schools in St. Louis.
In 1981, U.S. District Judge William Hungate threatened to
hold then-state Attorney General Ashcroft and the state in
contempt for ``continual delay and failure to comply'' with
orders to file a desegregation plan. Hungate wrote later,
``The state has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to
defy the authority of this court.''
Ashcroft also had to deflect criticism for blocking Ronnie
White, the first black Missouri Supreme Court justice, from
becoming a federal judge. In U.S. Senate proceedings in 1999,
Ashcroft called White ``pro-criminal,'' although White voted
to uphold the death penalty in 41 of 59 cases. ``I deeply
resent those baseless accusations,'' White told the Judiciary
Committee on Thursday. Ashcroft said White's dissents didn't
meet the standards for retrying cases.
Ashcroft's defenders make their best case when they give
examples of how the nominee enforced laws to which he was
personally opposed. He once argued as attorney general
against the dissemination of religious materials on public
school grounds, even though he favored the practice. He
created the structure for a lottery when it won approval in
Missouri, even though he calls gambling a ``cancer.'' In
other matters, he balanced eight straight budgets, increased
education funding, championed consumer protection and
advocated online privacy bills.
If his nomination is affirmed, as it appears it will be, in
time Ashcroft will be tested on his words to senators that no
part of the Justice Department is more important than the
Civil Rights Division and on his pronouncement, ``My primary
personal belief is that the law is supreme.'' Americans will
be counting on him to show us by his actions that his words
weren't convenient window-dressing for a record that reflects
effective public service but falls short of inspiring
national bipartisanship.

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the time
until 9:45 a.m. is under the control of the Senator from South Dakota,
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. President, while I have cast votes in favor of all
15 of President Bush's nominees to come thus far before the Senate, I
rise today to say, sadly, that I cannot vote in favor of Senator John
Ashcroft for the office of Attorney General of the United States.
My position on Cabinet level nominees during both Republican and
Democratic Presidencies has remained the same: a presumption in favor
of a President's nomination rests with the nominee, and they should be
rejected by the Senate only under extraordinary circumstances. Thus far
during the 107th Congress, I have voted in favor of: Paul O'Neill for
Treasury Secretary; Spencer Abraham for Energy Secretary; Donald Evans
for Commerce Secretary; Donald Rumsfeld for Defense Secretary; Ann
Veneman for Agriculture Secretary; Roderick Paige for Education
Secretary; Colin Powell for Secretary of State; Melquiades Martinez as
Housing and Urban Development Secretary; Anthony Principi as Secretary
of Veterans Affairs; Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. to be Director of the
Office of Management and Budget; Tommy G. Thompson for Secretary of
Health and Human Services; Norman Mineta as Transportation Secretary;
Elaine Chao as Secretary of Labor; Gale Norton as Interior Secretary;
and Christine Todd Whitman as Environmental Protection Agency Director.
Even though numerous of these people have used positions that are
contrary to my own, I have respected the President's nominations, and
have cast my votes on all 15 of these instances in favor of the
President's nominee.
The U.S. Constitution, however, requires the Senate to consider
consent or rejection of Cabinet nominees, and the Senate was not
intended by the founders of our Nation to be simply a ``rubber stamp''
for any President. I am particularly troubled by this nomination for
Attorney General, knowing that office does not serve as ``the
President's personal lawyer''--the President has White House counsel
for that purpose--but that the Attorney General serves as the peoples'
lawyer; he is an advocate for all Americans in our courts of law.
I have applauded President Bush's expressions of support for
bipartisan Government and the kind of political moderation that will
bring Americans together rather than tear them apart. In turn, I have
helped organize a ``centrist caucus'' of Republicans and Democrats in
the Senate, and a ``New Democratic'' organization consisting of
moderate Democrats committed to working with moderate Republicans. I
believe this is the kind of Government the American people want, and
that they are weary of political extremism and harsh ideologies of
either the left or right.
I must conclude, based on testimony in Senate hearings, and from a
review of Senator Ashcroft's years in elective office, that this man is
the wrong man at the wrong time for the high office of Attorney
General. If ever there was a nominee who has committed his years of
public service to rejecting bipartisanship and moderation, it is
Senator Ashcroft. This nominee has stated repeatedly that he will never
be a party to moderation, or to conciliation between the parties. He
has consistently mocked the very notion of bipartisanship during his
years in the Senate. He is famous for his observation when he says that
only two things will be found in the middle of the road--dead skunks
and moderates, and I will be neither. How now, can Senator Ashcroft
gain the confidence of all the American people that he will be their
defender and their advocate?

Senator Ashcroft refuses to distance himself from Bob Jones
University where he received an honorary degree, despite that
institution's harsh criticism of the Pope as ``anti-Christ'' and the
Roman Catholic and Mormon religions as ``cults.'' He declines to
disavow the Southern Partisan Quarterly Review, a magazine which,
incredibly, has defended slavery. He has sponsored as many as seven
constitutional amendments to the U.S. Constitution, including one which
would outlaw most forms of contraception, and take away a woman's
constitutional right to determine for herself whether to have an early
abortion, even where rape, incest, or severe physical injury would be
involved.
Senator Ashcroft's record indicates that he has not always
distinguished between his strident advocacy and his willingness to
enforce the law of the land. As the Missouri Attorney General, he did
all in his power to undermine a voluntary school desegregation plan in
St. Louis, denouncing voluntary desegregation as ``an outrage against
human decency.'' The St. Louis Post Dispatch described his campaign as
``exploiting and encouraging the worst racist sentiments that exist in
the state.''
Perhaps most of all, I am troubled by Senator Ashcroft's handling of
the Judge White nomination. After the Pope, in a visit to St. Louis,
had convinced Governor Mel Carnahan, Senator Ashcroft's opponent at the
time, to not execute a certain Missouri prisoner, Ashcroft saw an
opportunity to vilify Carnahan as ``soft on crime.'' One of his
strategies was to depict a distinguished and highly regarded African
American judge as ``anti-death penalty'' and use the blocking of his
nomination to Federal district court as a high profile means of
claiming he would be tougher on crime then Governor Carnahan. This
despite the fact that Judge White had been endorsed by Republicans and
Democrats as well as the Missouri Bar Association and had upheld death
sentences at about the same rate as all other members of the Missouri
Supreme Court.
The very conservative columnist Stuart Taylor, wrote that the Judge
White incident alone renders Senator Ashcroft to be ``unfit to be
Attorney General.'' Taylor stated, ``The reason is that during an
important debate on a sensitive manner, then-Senator Ashcroft abused
the power of his office by descending to demagoguery, dishonesty and
character assassination.'' I do not contend that Mr. Ashcroft is a
racist, but I do believe his handling of this matter was characterized
by naked political opportunism, dishonesty, and an utter disregard for
justice.
I have no illusions about the end result of the vote on the Senate
floor; Senator Ashcroft will be confirmed. I have stated my opposition
to any filibuster effort on this mater. A filibuster would have
resulted in the need for Senator Ashcroft to secure 60 votes rather
than 51. While tactically, this might have increased the likelihood of
defeating his nomination, it is a process which has never been used on
Cabinet confirmations before, although

[[Page S938]]

Senator Ashcroft, himself, has used it against sub-Cabinet appointments
and has frequently voted against cabinet nominees. I believe President
Bush is entitled to a fair, up-and-down vote on his nominee. Although
the confirmation is then, virtually certain, I want to make it clear
that I will have nothing to do with supporting this particular one of
the 16 Presidential nominations to come before the Senate so far.
Senator Ashcroft, I believe, is the wrong man to help heal America's
divisions, the wrong man to lead the U.S. Department of Justice, and
the wrong man to serve as the guardian of the constitutional rights of
all the diverse people of our nation. I take my oath to the U.S.
Constitution seriously, and I also take my South Dakota values of
fairness, and integrity very seriously--for that reason I will vote no
on this nomination.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank my friend from South Dakota. He is
one of the most thoughtful Members of this body. I know he has spent a
great deal of time researching this. I know on an issue such as this,
when it was time to make his decision, there were only two elements
that totally influenced him--his conscience and his oath of office. I
know my friend from South Dakota upheld them both.
Mr. President, I do not see anybody on the Republican side at the
moment. The order gives them control of this debate from 9:45 until 10
o'clock. I ask consent to be able to continue. I know I have 4 minutes
remaining, but if need be, I ask unanimous consent to take another 5
minutes with the understanding I will yield that back immediately if a
member of the Republican Party shows up to take their time, and I so
ask unanimous consent.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, my good friend from Arizona, Senator Kyl,
had mentioned me by name on several occasions during his remarks. I
will take a moment to respond to two of the points of the distinguished
Senator from Arizona.
First, he said we somehow put Senator Ashcroft in an impossible
catch-22 situation where, if he promises to enforce the law, it is
described as a confirmation evolution or a metamorphosis. I think that
is a significant oversimplification of what the record shows.
I had the record here yesterday. It is well over 2 feet high in just
the questions and answers.
It also oversimplifies what the job of the Attorney General is. It is
not simply to enforce the law. Nobody questions the fact that if you
have some terrible crime--Oklahoma City, for example--whoever is the
Attorney General will enforce the law and bring down the full force of
the majesty of the law of this country regarding something that
heinous. In airplane hijacking, assassination, any one of these things
where the Attorney General gets involved in making decisions of who
gets prosecuted, what the penalties are, nobody questions, no matter
who is Attorney General, instituting the full force of that law.
However, it is the discretionary areas that are troublesome. Many
Members in this body have been prosecutors. We know everybody who is an
Attorney General, a district attorney, is faced with a number of issues
where you can apply the law at any one area of severity. We all know
you can decide the interest of society might be not to apply the law,
not to seek an indictment. We also know that any prosecutor has broad
discretionary powers in what to investigate and what not to
investigate; when to initiate a case, when to withhold a case; when to
drop a matter or to settle a case. What do you do, for example, in
antitrust? Do you bring the suit? Do you drop the suit? What do you do
in seeking a civil rights remedy? Do you look into it or not? What
happens if you think there has been voter fraud that may affect your
party and not the other party? Do you still look at it as strictly, or
not?
The Attorney General is not the President's attorney. In fact, it
should be pointed out that the President is allowed to appoint a White
House counsel--anybody he wants--and there is no Senate confirmation.
The reason for that is very simple: We have all believed whoever is
President should have counsel, a lawyer, representing him and his
interests in the White House with whom nobody else can interfere. Every
President has done that. It makes sense the President will pick them
and we can't question them. We can't say, you shouldn't have picked
this person; you shouldn't have picked that person. That is the
President's own attorney.

The Attorney General is different. The Attorney General is different
from anybody else in the Cabinet because the Attorney General is not a
political officer and a political arm of the White House. The Attorney
General represents all of us, whether rich, poor, black, white,
Democrat, Republican, old, young, conservative, liberal, moderate. We
are all represented by the Attorney General. That is why the Attorney
General is given such enormous discretion--in fact, in many instances
well beyond, whether the President likes it or not. The President can
always fire the Attorney General, but the Attorney General has that
discretionary power.
When Senator Ashcroft says he will exercise that discretion in a
manner that respects settled law, a number of areas in which he
aggressively and vigorously opposed throughout his career, then it is
understandable that many Members may be troubled and skeptical.
My friend from Arizona says many Members have criticized the
Republicans for applying too tough a standard to the nomination of Bill
Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division, yet we seem to be applying
the same standard to Senator Ashcroft. When Bill Lann Lee swore under
oath and reiterated time and time again that he would enforce the law,
we were told by our friends on the Republican side of the Senate, this
wasn't good enough, we couldn't accept that--basically using the same
words Senator Ashcroft used.
The difference is we were prepared to vote against; they wouldn't
allow a vote. If they didn't believe him, they chould have voted
against him; if they were for him, they could have voted for him.
It is different here. Here we are debating Senator Ashcroft to be
Attorney General. We actually received the nomination in the Senate
earlier this week. After the then-President-elect said he was going to
nominate him, we moved forward to have a hearing and completed the
hearing prior to the President's inauguration. That is a major
difference. We are going to vote on him.
Bill Lann Lee--we should point out, if people are going to raise that
as a standard--Bill Lann Lee, a fine, dedicated person, who swore to
uphold the law, was never even given the courtesy of a vote by the
Senate.
Senator Ashcroft can be asked how he interprets the oath of office.
It is the same oath of office he will take as U.S. Attorney General. It
is the one he took as Missouri's Governor and attorney general. That is
why we have raised so many of the points in the hearing. They
demonstrate an interpretation of his oath of office in the past, his
interpretation of law that he now claims during 2 days of hearings, an
entirely different interpretation from what he has shown for 25 years
prior to those 2 days of hearings.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the call
for the quorum be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized and has control of the time
until 10:15 a.m.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, first I want to say to the former
chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee--for 17 days, from January 3
until January 20--the very able and distinguished Senator from Vermont,
I commend him for the hearings he held on the nomination of John
Ashcroft to be the Attorney General of the United States. I had the
opportunity to watch some of the hearings. I followed them in the
press. I think the able Senator from Vermont conducted a very
comprehensive, very careful hearing with respect to former

[[Page S939]]

Senator Ashcroft. I think he is much to be commended for doing an
outstanding job. He obviously took very seriously the responsibilities
of the Senate with respect to its constitutional advise and consent
role.
I thought a major effort was obviously made to hear from all sides on
this important question. It meant going late into the evening on more
than 1 day. But I thought it was a model of how hearings ought to be
conducted.
It was not pro forma. It really probed deeply into some very basic
and fundamental questions, and I, for one, want to express my very deep
appreciation to the Senator from Vermont for the way he planned and
conducted those hearings. The Senate is in his debt.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I appreciate that very much coming from one
of the intellectual giants of the Senate, my good friend from Maryland.
I appreciate what he said. He and I are two who believe strongly in the
Senate's role and to do all we can to carry it out. I appreciate his
kind words.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination
of John Ashcroft to be the Attorney General of the United States. I do
not do this lightly. I recognize, of course, the argument that is made
that Presidents ought to be able to have their Cabinet picks. I have
generally in the past, although not always, deferred to that concept,
although I think it obviously can be overdone, and the Senate needs to
be careful not to be taken down the path in which we simply become
rubber stamps with respect to nominations for the Cabinet. If that is
what the Founding Fathers had intended, presumably they never would
have put the advise and consent function in the Senate with respect to
nominees to the executive branch of the Government.
Of course, the judiciary is an entirely separate matter since it is
an independent branch of the Government, and I think there the standard
is much higher and much less acknowledgment or deference should be
given to the President's judgment. But I recognize the argument that is
made with respect to Cabinet members.
On the other hand, I think it is very important when we consider
Cabinet appointments, and particularly an office such as the Attorney
General, to be very careful in judging how the very important
responsibilities of that office will be carried out.

I thought the Senator from Vermont made a very important contribution
to this debate in his statement when he outlined the importance of the
position of the Attorney General. I am not sure enough focus has been
placed on that dimension.
The Senator pointed out that it is a position of extraordinary
importance; that the judgment and priorities of the person who is the
Attorney General affect the lives of all Americans; that the Attorney
General is the lawyer for all the people and the chief law enforcement
officer in the country.
The Attorney General controls a very large budget, over $20 billion.
He directs the activities of almost 125,000 attorneys, investigators,
Border Patrol agents, deputy marshals, correctional officers, and other
employees in over 2,700 Department of Justice facilities throughout
this country and in 120 foreign cities. He supervises the selection and
actions of the 93 U.S. attorneys and their assistants; the U.S.
marshals; supervises the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the
Immigration and Naturalization Service; the Drug Enforcement Agency;
the Bureau of Prisons; and many other Federal law enforcement
components.
Furthermore, the Attorney General evaluates judicial candidates,
recommends judicial nominees to the President, advises the executive
branch on the constitutionality of bills and laws, determines when the
Federal Government will go into court, what statutes to defend in
court, what arguments to make to the Supreme Court and other courts.
In other words, as the Senator from Vermont pointed out, the Attorney
General exercises a very broad discretion in terms of the judgments he
makes and the actions he takes. Therefore, it simply does not dispose
of the issue of how someone will perform in the office to assert that
he will carry out the laws of the United States.
I would hope so. It is not much of a threshold for a Cabinet nominee
to assert that, if confirmed, he will carry out the laws of the United
States?
That is the minimum threshold. In the instance of the Attorney
General, there is a broad range of activities that are subject to his
judgment and discretion, subject to the Attorney General's sense of
priorities, and that, of course, is what raises some very difficult
questions with respect to this nomination.
Senator Ashcroft has never hidden the fact that he has planted
himself at the extreme of the political spectrum. In fact, he has taken
pride in that fact and asserted it in the course of his political
career. Moderation is not a word which enters into his political
thinking. In fact, on more than one occasion, he has belittled
moderation, as the Washington Post pointed out in an editorial just a
few days ago.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to printed the editorial in
the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 21, 2001]

Wrong for Justice

The Constitution assigns to the Senate the duty to provide
a president advice and consent on his nominations. Had George
W. Bush sought senators' advice before designating John
Ashcroft as his choice for attorney general, the answer, in
our view, would have been easy. Former senator Ashcroft is
the wrong man for that job. But a president is entitled to
wide latitude in picking his advisers, wider than in
selecting judges whose tenure will outlast his, and in part
for that reason Mr. Ashcroft seems likely to win
confirmation. But if Mr. Bush is entitled to the attorney
general he wants, he is not entitled to take pride in the
pick, and we fear it is one that may not serve him or the
country well.
Mr. Ashcroft's views and record put him on the far right
edge of Republican politics. It is not just that we disagree
with many of his positions, on issues ranging from gun
control to campaign finance reform; it is that Mr. Ashcroft
seems in a different place from that which Mr. Bush seemed to
promise for his administration during his campaign and again
yesterday in his inaugural address. The Missouri politician's
support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion even
in cases of rape is only one example. Last week he indicated
in committee testimony that he would have no difficulty
living with Mr. Bush's more nuanced views, but if his
lifelong crusade against abortion has stemmed from deep
conviction--which we have no reason to doubt--it is hard to
understand how that could be so easily switched off. The same
is true of his intolerance of homosexuality.
More troubling than his views have been Mr. Ashcroft's
inflammatory political tactics. On a range of issues--as a
governing philosophy, in fact--Mr. Ashcroft has explicitly
belittled moderation; he would now assume a job that demands
a sense of balance, of respect for opposing views. He helped
block, as senator, the confirmation of well-qualified
nominees whose views he found noxious; we think in particular
of James Hormel, whom Mr. Ashcroft deemed unfit to serve as
ambassador to Luxembourg because of his advocacy of gay
rights, and Bill Lann Lee, whom Mr. Ashcroft opposed for a
Justice Department position on civil rights.
Most troubling of all is the designee's record of
insensitivity toward those rights, a record that raises
doubts about whether the Justice Department can maintain its
role in a Bush administration as a defender of minorities in
need of legal help. In 1984, Mr. Ashcroft based his
gubernatorial primary campaign on his zealous opposition as
attorney general to a voluntary desegregation plan for St.
Louis's public schools, boasting on the trail that his
tactics had risked a contempt of court citation and using
television attack ads to charge that his Republican primary
opponent was too soft in opposing desegregation. While
considering a run for president in 1999, Mr. Ashcroft granted
an interview to Southern Partisan magazine, which glorifies
the former Confederacy, and accepted an honorary degree from
Bob Jones University in South Carolina, site of a key GOP
primary. In testimony last week he claimed ignorance about
the magazine's more odious aspects, but in his interview he
explicitly endorsed its efforts to burnish the reputations of
Confederate leaders. Mr. Ashcroft also declined during his
confirmation hearing to repudiate his association with and
praise for Bob Jones (``I thank God for this institution''),
which maintained a ban on interracial dating at the time of
his visit.
Finally, as he prepared for his reelection campaign for the
U.S. Senate last year, then-Sen. Ashcroft grossly distorted
the record of black Missouri supreme court judge Ronnie White
in opposing his appointment to a federal appeals court, as we
wrote in this space at the time. On the Senate floor, Mr.
Ashcroft portrayed the respected judge as a man with a
``tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' In one case,
Mr. White had favored a new trial for an African American
convicted before a judge who had made racially inflammatory
statements; Mr. Ashcroft claimed on the Senate floor,
falsely, that Judge White's complaint was that the judge in
question opposed affirmative action.

[[Page S940]]

Mr. Ashcroft argues that in each of these instances he was
stressing legitimate policy positions, such as opposition to
busing, support for state's rights and resistance to a soft-
on-crime judiciary. But deliberately or not, he was also
playing racial politics.
Senators traditionally have voted to confirm nominees whose
ideologies they reject, and that is not a tradition to be
lightly set aside. We opposed Mr. Ashcroft's own tendency to
block nominations on ideological grounds, a standard that
seems no more right when turned against him. Moreover, it is
troubling to see opponents overreach and demonize the
Ashcroft record, as in Sen. Edward Kennedy's distortion that
Mr. Ashcroft considers the U.S. government to be a tyranny.
By the same token, though, Mr. Ashcroft's defenders are
mistaken when they allege that opposition to him is simply a
manifestation of religious prejudice or partisan politics.
If Mr. Ashcroft is confirmed, he, and even more the
president, will incur a particular obligation to staff the
Justice Department with people of demonstrated fairness and
integrity and to show that they can administer the law even-
handedly. With this appointment, it seems to us, Mr. Bush has
taken on a burden he did not need. We hope, for his sake and
the country's, that as attorney general Mr. Ashcroft would
behave as the measured and reasonable man he portrayed at
last week's hearings, and not with the opportunism that has
marred his career.

(Mr. ALLEN assumed the Chair.)
Mr. SARBANES. I now quote from that editorial:

More troubling than his views have been Mr. Ashcroft's
inflammatory political tactics. On a range of issues--as a
governing philosophy, in fact--Mr. Ashcroft has explicitly
belittled moderation; he would now assume a job that demands
a sense of balance, of respect for opposing views. . . .

Those of us who have interacted with him in the Senate have spoken
about the intensity and the zeal of his positions as an advocate, and I
recognize that. In fact, he has asserted it as one of his great
political strengths and something in which he takes a great deal of
pride.
He has taken a number of positions which are well outside the
mainstream of thinking--most Americans, I think, are in the middle of
the road. Senator Ashcroft has been quoted as saying that there are
only two things you find in the middle of the road--a moderate and a
dead skunk.
I think one will find most of the American people are in the middle
of the road.
There are extreme ideological positions here which of course, raise
important questions. In fact, when Senator Ashcroft held up the
nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be the head of the Civil Rights
Division--a man of extraordinary qualification and dedication, a life
story that ought to command the respect and admiration of all
Americans--he argued that Lee is ``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.''
That is the mental framework, the perspective that he brought to this
very important nomination as the head of the Civil Rights Division in
the Department of Justice. I do not intend to simply turn that standard
and apply it to him but I do think it is indicative of an attitude and
of a mindset that gives me great pause when I come to consider someone
who is going to exercise the kind of discretion and broad range of
judgments that are placed in the hands of the Attorney General of the
United States under the statutes of our country.
Another instance I want to point to which has given me great concern
is what John Ashcroft did to Judge Ronnie White. As others have spoken
at length on that, I will not go into it in any great detail, But Judge
White was ambushed on the floor of the Senate. That, simply put, is
what it amounted to. And that ambush was, in effect, staged by John
Ashcroft.

Judge White is a man who worked his way up, the classic American
opportunity story, to become a judge on the highest court of the State
of Missouri, an African American who broke a barrier when he went on
that court. He was then nominated to be a Federal district judge. His
nomination was brought out of the Judiciary Committee. The arguments
used on the floor to ambush him were not raised in the Committee. On
the floor the Senate was told that ``he has a tremendous bent toward
criminal activity.'' Imagine saying that about a sitting judge of the
State's highest court, a statement which upon examination cannot be
sustained.
Furthermore, Senator Ashcroft argued about White that, if confirmed
``he will use his lifetime appointment to push law in a pro-criminal
direction consistent with his own personal political agenda.''
No wonder that legal columnist Stuart Taylor, wrote in an article
that John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White alone makes him unfit to
be Attorney General.

The reason is that during an important debate on a
sensitive matter, then-Senator Ashcroft abused the power of
his office by descending to demagoguery, dishonesty and
character assassination.

The Baltimore Sun, in an editorial of yesterday--I ask unanimous
consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:

[From the Baltimore Sun, Jan. 31, 2001]

Ashcroft Isn't Right for Attorney General

Few people had ever heard of racial profiling a few years
ago.
But now it's a household phrase, because former Attorney
General Janet Reno's lawyers proved many police departments
were treating skin color as if it were a highway crime,
pulling over minority drivers for one reason--their race.
It was an important reminder that discrimination is still
very much alive in America.
During Ms. Reno's tenure, Justice Department lawyers delved
into problems in employment, fair housing and lending,
education, public accommodations and voting. They
investigated Americans With Disability Act violations,
enforced federal laws protecting access to abortion clinics.
The point: Ms. Reno didn't merely acknowledge or respect
the existence of civil rights and other laws designed to
protect Americans. She embraced them and enforced them
doggedly, because discrimination still robs entire classes of
Americans of their most basic liberties.
That brings us to the troubling nomination of former
Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft to head the Justice Department.
His record suggest no such embrace of civil rights laws or
the premise of equal protection under law. Many things he has
said and done betray a vicious hostility toward them.
He has blasted the judiciary (which he calls the least
representative branch of government) for granting ``group
rights'' to minorities, without regard to the group
discrimination that necessitates those rights.
He has opposed public school desegregation--in one instance
to the point of being threatened with judicial contempt--and
proposed a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion in all
forms for any reason.
And he has defended or stood mute in the face of other
institutions that attack the very premise of equal rights--
Bob Jones University, a neo-Confederate magazine called
Southern Partisan, even groups with ties to the Ku Klux Klan.
His record has inspired progressive groups around the
country to oppose Mr. Ashcroft's nomination. It's also why
some Democratic senators are threatening a filibuster to
block a confirmation vote.
We share the concerns about Mr. Ashcroft's civil rights
record. We worry that his confirmation as attorney general
could mean the end of the Justice Department's important
efforts to level Americas uneven playing fields.
But that alone would be insufficient for us to call for
derailing a Cabinet nominee. Generally, we believe presidents
should be given wide latitude in making their appointments.
There is another, a more important reason to oppose Mr.
Ashcroft--his character.
When Mr. Ashcroft tanked the federal judicial nomination of
Ronnie White, he demonstrated recklessness with truth and
integrity that the nation can't countenance in an attorney
general.
He lied about Mr. White's stance on death penalty cases,
painting him as an anti-death penalty maverick when, in fact,
Mr. White had affirmed death sentences 71 percent of the time
as a Missouri Supreme Court judge.
And to this date, Mr. Ashcroft has not owned up to what he
did. During his own confirmation hearings before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ashcroft defended what he did to Mr.
White--and denied that it represented a distortion of the
truth.
Whatever the reasons for Mr. Ashcroft's actions, they speak
to a willingness to pursue his own agenda by any means
necessary, without regard to veracity of fairness.
That makes it difficult--or near impossible--to imagine Mr.
Ashcroft setting a credible legal agenda from the seat of the
nation's highest law enforcement officer.
It also makes it hard to believe any of what Mr. Ashcroft
said during his testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, when he passionately stated he would abide by and
enforce laws that don't necessarily coincide with his
personal beliefs.

[[Page S941]]

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted yesterday to confirm
Mr. Ashcroft. The full Senate could vote by Thursday.
A ``no'' vote in the full chamber--however unlikely that
might be--is the only course that will save the Justice
Department from the taint of Mr. Ashcroft's improbity.

Mr. SARBANES. In commenting on John Ashcroft's distortion of Judge
White's record, said:

Whatever the reasons for Mr. Ashcroft's actions, they speak
to a willingness to pursue his own agenda by any means
necessary, without regard to veracity or fairness.

This from an editorial in the Baltimore Sun entitled ``Ashcroft isn't
right for attorney general.''
I just want to add one other instance or example of the kind of
approach and attitude in John Ashcroft's record that concerns me.
When he was attorney general of the State of Missouri, charged with
carrying out the laws, he repeatedly, in school segregation cases, was
rebuked and overruled by the courts, both State and Federal courts, on
very sensitive and important school segregation cases.
In my view, he has had a consistent record of being at the extreme,
of taking positions well outside the mainstream. And we are now faced
with the question of whether he should be placed in a position where he
will have broad discretion and will be making very sensitive judgments.
It is a position that the whole country looks to to sustain its civil
rights and its civil liberties.
The Nation needs to have confidence that the person serving as
Attorney General will personify fairness and justice to all our people
all across our country.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Maryland has
expired.
Mr. SARBANES. I ask unanimous consent to speak for another 30
seconds.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SARBANES. The New York Times, in an editorial opposing this
nomination, made reference to President Bush's inaugural visions of ``a
single nation of justice and opportunity.'' In my view John Ashcroft
does not carry out that vision. I oppose his nomination. I ask
unanimous consent that this editorial be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the New York Times, Jan. 23, 2001]

Opposing the Ashcroft Nomination

The days after an inauguration are always marked by a
spirit of optimism and well-wishing. But it also has to be a
time for marking out fundamental principles that should come
into play as the nation seeks the new civic accord that
President George W. Bush eloquently endorsed in his inaugural
address. It is within this framework that the Senate should
consider the nomination of John Ashcroft as attorney general.
For our part, we wish that we could simply acquiesce in a
confirmation that seems assured by the expectation that all
50 Republicans and a number of Democrats will vote to approve
Mr. Ashcroft. But the matter is more complex than that.
As in our first commentary on Mr. Ashcroft's nomination, we
stipulate that we are convinced he is a man of sincere
conviction and personal rectitude. But the testimony before
the Judiciary Committee established that he is not a nuanced
or tolerant thinker about law, about constitutional tradition
or about the general direction of an increasingly diverse
American society.
Any reasonable reading of the extensive Judiciary Committee
testimony shows that Mr. Ashcroft's zeal has overruled
prudence in cases that bear directly on issues relevant to
the Department of Justice. For example, the desegregation of
public schools, often under voluntary agreements supervised
by federal courts, has bipartisan roots reaching back to the
Eisenhower presidency. But as Missouri attorney general, Mr.
Ashcroft opposed a court-approved voluntary desegregation
plan for St. Louis and failed to come up with an alternative
that would have ameliorated the segregated conditions.
Mr. Ashcroft's tactics in blocking Judge Ronnie White's
elevation from the Missouri Supreme Court in the federal
bench raise problems of another sort. Judge White had a
strong record of supporting capital punishment and often
voted with Mr. Ashcroft's appointees on the Missouri Supreme
Court. But on the floor of the Senate, Mr. Ashcroft advanced
the fabricated charge that Judge White was ``pro-criminal''
and had ``a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.''
Before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Ashcroft persisted in
this demagogic attack, insisting that he was merely
exercising his prerogative as a senator to reach an
independent judgment. He was equally unpersuasive in
explaining his plainly homophobic opposition to the
confirmation of James Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. Mr.
Hormel is a man of sterling legal and diplomatic credentials.
Yet Mr. Ashcroft declared that he opposed Mr. Hormel based on
the ``totality'' of his record.
As President Bush likes to say, we cannot read what is in
another's heart. But neither can any civic-minded participant
in this process fail to consider Mr. Ashcroft's history of
opposition and code-worded condemnation of those whose color,
sexual preference, religious views and attitude toward
abortion differ from his own.
On the issue of abortion, Mr. Ashcroft swore that his 30-
year history of legislative and constitutional attacks on
abortion rights would not lead him to oppose the ``settled
law'' supporting those rights. Of equal importance, he
testified under oath that he would not use his powers as
attorney general to invite a Supreme Court reversal of Roe v.
Wade, the ruling that guarantees reproductive freedom of
choice for American women.
We welcome those statements as a solemn pledge to the
American people on a pivotal issue of civil liberties and
constitutional law. But that reassurance does not lift from
this page or the Senate the obligation to look at the entire
mosaic pieced together by the Judiciary Committee. In the
Senate, Mr. Ashcroft's legislative record shows a public
official with a history of insensitivity to minority concerns
and a radical propensity for offering constitutional
amendments that would bring that document into alignment with
his religious views. He even favored an amendment to make it
easier to revise the Constitution.
We urge a unified Democratic vote in the Senate against
confirmation. If 40 or more Democrats cast a vote of
principle against Mr. Ashcroft's record, he and Mr. Bush will
be on notice that sensitivity to and regard for the beliefs
and rights of all Americans have to be governing realities at
the Department of Justice.
We do not argue that Mr. Ashcroft is a bad man. We do
assert that his record makes him a regrettable appointee for
a new president who speaks with conviction about creating an
atmosphere of reassurance for all members of the American
family. Given this newspaper's long history of defending
civil liberties, reproductive freedom, gay rights and racial
justice, we cannot endorse Mr. Ashcroft as an appropriate
candidate to lead a department charged with providing justice
for all Americans. But recognizing that his confirmation is
probable, we can hope that Mr. Ashcroft's performance as
attorney general will be based on the president's inaugural
vision of ``a single nation of justice and opportunity''
rather than on the general philosophy of Mr. Ashcroft's
public career to date.

Mr. SARBANES. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I thank the Senator from Maryland.
Under the previous order, the time until 10:30 shall be under the
control of the majority party.
The Chair recognizes the assistant majority leader, the Senator from
Oklahoma, Mr. Nickles.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, thank you very much.
Mr. President, I rise in total and complete support of John Ashcroft
to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I do that with
great pleasure, and with pride, because I know him. And I am not amused
when I hear people talking about John Ashcroft in a way that is not the
John Ashcroft I know.
I know John Ashcroft. I have served with John Ashcroft. I have spent
hours and hours and hours with John Ashcroft on a multitude of issues.
I have absolute, total, and complete confidence that he is going to be
one outstanding Attorney General of the United States.
He is as qualified as anybody that has ever been an Attorney General.
If you look at his qualifications, he was attorney general for the
State of Missouri for 8 years. He was named head of the National
Association of Attorneys General which means the other attorneys
general all across the country elected him to be their leader.
I have heard some of my colleagues say he is extreme. That is not the
type of person a bipartisan group of Attorneys General would pick. He
would not have been picked as the head of the National Association of
Attorneys General.
He served for 8 years as Governor of the State of Missouri. He was
elected head of the National Governors' Association. Again, that is not
an extremist. That is not somebody outside the mainstream. He was
elected by his peers, by the bipartisan group of Governors, to be head
of the National Governors' Association.
He then was elected to the Senate which is how I really got to know
him. Of course, I had known him by reputation as being an outstanding
attorney general and outstanding Governor.

[[Page S942]]

He was an outstanding Senator. He served 6 years in this institution.
I served with him in countless meetings, and I could not have come away
knowing a person of greater intellect and integrity--a person of
conviction, a person who can get things done, a person who is willing
to listen to all people on all sides, a person who is fair. Again, I
have come to the conclusion that he will be an outstanding Attorney
General.
I am bothered by the opposition. I wonder where it comes from because
maybe they are talking about a different person.
On the issue of fairness, I have heard people say that we have done a
good job since we have confirmed all of President Bush's nominees
except one, and it has only taken a couple weeks.
I go back 8 years ago, after President Clinton was elected, when
every one of President Clinton's nominees were confirmed by voice vote,
unanimously, by January 21, except for one, and that was for Attorney
General. And that delay was not because Republicans were fighting the
Attorney General nomination. It was because President Clinton ended up
sending three names to the Senate because he had some problems with the
first two before he submitted his final nominee. The delay was not
because of Senate opposition. It was because he had some problems with
the first couple of nominees he submitted.
When we eventually got to Janet Reno, after he submitted her to the
Senate, she was confirmed in very short order without all this rancor,
without all this partisan nonsense. She was confirmed 98-0. She was
every bit as liberal as John Ashcroft is conservative--every bit.
In addition, Ms. Reno said she was going to uphold the law. I have
heard the intensity of this debate since John Ashcroft is pro-life.
Will he enforce the law and access to abortion clinics? John Ashcroft
said he would. He took an oath. He said: I will uphold the law of the
land.
In comparison, it is interesting to note that the Beck decision is
the law of the land.
Attorney General Reno and the Clinton Administration did not enforce
that decision. Also, the law of the land on campaign finance says it is
unlawful to solicit or receive funds on Federal property. She did not
enforce that statute in spite of the fact that her own people in the
Justice Department said: You need to appoint a special counsel. She did
not do it. Although it was the law of the land, she did not enforce it.
Some of us are troubled by that. Maybe I wish I had my vote back.
If people want to vote against John Ashcroft, they can vote against
him, but to make these character assassinations is totally unfair. It
certainly is not what happened 8 years ago.
Let me touch on a couple other things. I have heard he should not be
confirmed because he was opposed to Judge White. Well, I voted against
Judge White, and I would vote against him again. Why? I have been in
the Senate for 20 years almost as long as Senator Leahy, the ranking
minority member on the committee. I don't remember a single time a
national law enforcement group or association contacting Senators to
say please vote no on a Federal judge.
I remember getting a letter from the National Sheriffs' Association
saying: Vote no on Judge White. I said: Why? Well, there was a case
where three deputy sheriffs were murdered and a sheriff's wife was
murdered and the defendant confessed. That case is the reason they
wrote the letter. Of seven Missouri Supreme Court judges, Judge White
was the sole dissenter who said: Let's review this case. There may be
extenuating circumstances and the defendant deserves another trial.
The sheriffs didn't feel that way. The prosecutors didn't feel that
way. Other prosecutors, the sheriffs, and the chiefs of police in
Missouri, said: Don't confirm Judge White. I can't remember, again,
another nomination where you had the chiefs of police all across the
State who know the particular judge say: Don't confirm him. That was
something I needed to know.
I am also troubled when some people say: You didn't confirm Judge
White because of his race. Most of us didn't know what race he was. We
knew law enforcement was against him, and we voted no. I make no
apologies for that vote.
To imply that someone is a racist because they oppose a nominee is
wrong. Most of us opposed Judge White because he was opposed by law
enforcement groups.
I heard somebody say: John Ashcroft, back when he was Governor,
opposed a court decision on desegregation. Then we find out that
Senator Danforth, who is probably as respected a moderate as anybody,
also opposed that decision, and Congressman Gephardt opposed that
decision. At that time, I think Mel Carnahan, who was also an elected
official in the State of Missouri, opposed that decision. Yet some
people are trying to make that a reason to oppose John Ashcroft.
John Ashcroft has had about three decades of public life. His record
has been scrutinized to the nth degree. People are almost making up
things to try to oppose his nomination. I think it is unwarranted. It
is unfounded. A lot of it is below the belt and is beneath the dignity
of the Senate. People have a right to oppose a nomination. If they want
to oppose somebody, they can vote no, but they should not
mischaracterize his record. I think what has happened repeatedly is
beneath the dignity of the Senate, below the civility of the Senate.
I urge people to be cautious when they make personal attacks against
other individuals, and especially against a former colleague. Again,
many of us in this body have had the privilege to know John Ashcroft.
We know him. We know him well. I know him well. I am very proud to cast
my vote today in support of John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney
General. I look forward to him being the next Attorney General. I am
confident he will represent this country extremely well in that
capacity.

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. 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 that some
additional op-ed pieces, columns, and others be printed in the Record
regarding this nomination.
There being no objection, the materials were ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 19, 2001]

Ashcroft The Activist

(By William Raspberry)

Opponents of John Ashcroft's nomination to become attorney
general have been turning over every rock in sight, hoping to
find some outrageous statement, some political skeleton, some
evidence that he is unfit to be the nation's chief law
enforcement officer.
His supporters have been doing their best to prove that the
nominee is technically qualified for the job and is,
moreover, a decent man who would enforce the law fairly.
The whole thing seems to be missing the point. I have never
doubted Ashcroft's decency, never questioned his legal
abilities, never worried that, in a particular case, he would
be unfair.
But the attorney general is not just the nation's chief
cop. He is also the chief influencer of our law-enforcement
policy.
It is from that office that decisions are made on which
laws to enforce, and how vigorously; what discretion ought to
be exercised, and in which direction; how law-enforcement
resources should be deployed, and with what emphases. Bland
reassurances that Ashcroft would ``enforce the law fairly''
aren't much help.
To take a simple example, what does it mean to enforce
America's drug laws ``fairly''? Does it mean locking up
anybody caught with illegal drugs, as the law permits? Does
it mean focusing resources on major traffickers, as the law
also permits? Does it mean shifting resources from
enforcement to treatment--or the other way around? Does it
mean confiscating more and more assets of people found in
violation of the drug laws? The law allows all these things--
allows as well the disparate sentencing for powdered and
``crack'' cocaine and the well-documented racial disparity
that results from it.
To promise to enforce the law without talking about which
policies would be emphasized or changed is to say nothing at
all. Absent a president with strong feelings on the matter,
law-enforcement policy is largely left to attorneys general
to decide. Some have gone against discrimination, some
against organized crime, some against monopolies and trusts.
Some have followed public sentiment, and some have gone their
own

[[Page S943]]

way. Most of the time, it hasn't mattered much. So why do so
many non-conservatives believe it will matter so much this
time?
The answer is in Ashcroft's record of advocacy. He has
fought with extraordinary vigor for positions that are well
outside the American mainstream--on gun control, on abortion,
on juvenile justice, on the death penalty. I don't mean to
deny that his position on all these issues might be shared by
a significant minority. I say only that his views are
unusually conservative. He is, I think it fair to say, an
ideologue. And when you take someone who has been advocating
views that are well away from the political center and put
him in charge of law-enforcement policy, it's not enough to
say he'll ``enforce the law.''
Ashcroft signaled his own understanding of this point when
he was asked whether he would try to undermine the 1973 Roe
v. Wade decision on abortion. He said that for the solicitor
general (who ranks under the attorney general) to petition
the Supreme Court to have another look at Roe would undermine
the Justice Department's standing before the court.
He was, as I read his response, saying he could make the
attempt, though it might be impolitic to do so at this time.
Is it unfair to oppose Ashcroft, an experienced lawyer, out
of fear that his personal and religious views would influence
his role as attorney general?
As Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) reminded us the other day, it
is a question Ashcroft himself has answered. When Bill Lann
Lee was named by President Clinton to head the Justice
Department's civil rights division, Ashcroft fought to deny
him the job.
He had no doubt concerning the nominee's professional
ability, Ashcroft said at the time, but Lee's beliefs (on
affirmative action) ``limit his capacity to have the balanced
view of making judgments that will be necessary for the
person who runs the division.''
Why can't the same assessment apply to the person who will
run the whole department?
____

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2001]

Civil Rights `R Us

(By Mary McGrory)

Obviously, it's a case of mistaken identity.
That man sitting before the Senate Judiciary Committee is
no kooky right-winger. He's not anti-black, anti-Catholic, or
antisemitic, as holding an honorary degree from Bob Jones
University might suggest. He is against abortion, he admits
it, but he'll observe Roe v. Wade. He's a man of law.
Segregation? He's against it. Never mind that he fought
integration when he was attorney general and governor of
Missouri. He's a little sentimental about the Confederacy,
yes, but if he had been alive at the time of the Civil War,
he would have fought for the Union. Don't call him a partisan
Republican, please. When he's looking for the name of an
illustrious predecessor at Justice, Robert Kennedy leaps into
his mind. Harry Truman leads his list of prominent
Missourians.
This is an erstwhile club member who thanks senators for
mean questions and humbly praises their candor when they
blast his record.
Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) noted his sense of humor and
pointed out how handy it would be when the witness was
discussing ``the death penalty and other weighty matters'' at
the Justice Department.
The makeover of John Ashcroft, a cranky extremist, for his
confirmation hearings is a masterpiece. His handlers have
created a genial healer; his haberdashery is impeccable and
so are his manners. Five young men with black suits and stern
expressions sit a row behind him and hand over notes when
things get dicey.
This graduate of Yale and Harvard Law is pretty
sophisticated about most things, but not about hot potatoes
like Bob Jones U. and Southern Partisan magazine, a
publication to which he confided his misty-eyed appreciation
for the Confederacy, and one that has a profitable sideline
in T-shirts celebrating the assassination of Lincoln.
Wouldn't you know Lincoln is Ashcroft's favorite political
figure? He was shocked, shocked to learn about Southern
Partisan's excesses.
Ashcroft the nominee was engulfed in loving friends,
colleagues and family with a heavy sprinkling of blacks and
women who were so conspicuous in the protest groups outside.
This John Ashcroft wouldn't dream of turning down a
president's choice for the Cabinet just because there were
differences of opinion. He's tolerant almost to a fault, and
his opening statement could have been the bid of an aspirant
to the chairmanship of the ACLU, not top gun for George W.
Bush's legal team.
Opening day theatrics went like clockwork. Sen. Jean
Carnahan (D-Mo.), the widow of Ashcroft's opponent, Gov. Mel
Carnahan, brought her poignant dignity to a cameo appearance
as a presenter of the nominee. Her words were notably chilly.
She urged her colleagues to be fair, but it made a nice
picture.
Committee Republicans came through with econiums to the
nominee's character and integrity. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-
Iowa) fervently praised Ashcroft as someone ``who always does
right by the family farmer.'' Even Ashcroft's 2-year-old red-
headed grandson, Jimmy, performed perfectly. He came onto the
scene wailing, but his grandfather cheerfully introduced him
and he fell miraculously quiet.
On Day Two, a little celebrity caucus was brought on just
before the lunch break. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) gushed
about Ashcroft. So did former senator John Danforth (R-Mo.),
the patron of Clarence Thomas, Bush I's land mine Supreme
Court appointment. Like father, like son: Thomas was supposed
to flatten all objections because he is black; for Bush II,
Ashcroft's club membership is expected to stifle resistance.
There were moments of discord and disbelief, but these were
treated like caterer's mistakes at a splashy wedding. Sen.
Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) challenged Ashcroft's record on
school desegregation and voter registration. In Missouri,
Ashcroft had resisted a voluntary desegregation plan and
vetoed a registration expansion scheme. To answer Kennedy,
Ashcroft read his veto messages.
If the hearings resume next week, Ashcroft can expect a
kinder, gentler hand on the gavel in the person of Sen. Orrin
Hatch (R-Utah). Sen. Pat Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, was
temporary chairman but turns into a pumpkin when W. takes the
oath.
There's only one thing wrong with the Ashcroft picture, the
figure of Judge Ronnie White, the Missouri Supreme Court
judge who was deprived of a seat on the federal bench by the
persecution of Ashcroft, who got every Republican in the
Senate to vote against his nomination. Ashcroft found White
insufficiently enthusiastic about the death penalty.
By all accounts, Ronnie White is a distinguished member of
the State Supreme Court. Ashcroft misrepresented his record.
Ronnie White is black. Ashcroft, his allies insist, is no
racist. Did he slander Ronnie White for crass politics--an
effort to make the death sentence an issue in his campaign
against Carnahan? The paragon in the witness chair would not
do anything like that. Malice is a singularly unattractive
trait in an attorney general.
____

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 18, 2001]

The Ashcroft Double Standard

(By Richard Cohen)

A review of the record, a reading of the relevant
transcripts and some telephone interviews with people in the
know lead me to conclude that if John Ashcroft were a
Democrat, he would oppose his own nomination as attorney
general. For once, he would be right.
The Ashcroft of the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings is
a package of hypocrisy. His message is that his ideology,
hard right and intolerant, ought to be beside the point. What
is supposed to matter is his determination to uphold the law,
even the laws he believes are in contradiction to what God
himself intends. This is what Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
calls the ``Ashcroft standard.'' It is utter nonsense.
Take, for instance, the way Ashcroft handled the nomination
of James C. Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. Hormel was a
man of some accomplishment as, in fact, Ashcroft had
firsthand reason to know. Back in 1964, Hormel was a dean at
the University of Chicago Law School when Ashcroft was a
student there. Nonetheless, Hormel was gay and not
particularly shy about it, either. For that reason--and that
reason only--Ashcroft opposed the nomination.
This episode tells you quite a bit about Ashcroft. By any
measure, Hormel was certainly qualified to be ambassador to
this dot of a European country. As mentioned, he had been the
dean of a prestigious law school, had become a well-known San
Francisco civic leader and philanthropist and had been
endorsed by, among others, the Episcopal bishop of
California, the Right Rev. William Swing, and the former
everything (secretary of state, etc.), George Shultz.
Ashcroft was unmoved. Along with Trent Lott, he considered
homosexuality a sin and, as with racists, polygamists,
misogynists and you-name-its, he could cite this or that
passage of the Bible to support his intolerance. Whatever the
reason, he would not even meet with Hormel. He would not take
his phone calls.
Ashcroft explained his vote against Hormel in committee as
one based on the fear that Hormel was ``promoting a
lifestyle'' and what, when you come to think of it, this
might mean to embattled Luxembourg. And then he said this:
``People who are nominated to represent this country have to
be evaluated for whether they represent the country well and
fairly.''
There you have it: The Perry Mason Moment in which Ashcroft
blurts out the reason he is not suited to be attorney
general. His qualifications, as with Hormel's, are beside the
point. It's what he advocates that matters--whether, as he
would put it, he represents the country well and fairly.
It's Ashcroft's extreme views on abortion--not late-term or
mid-term, but what you might call pre-term. (He would ban so-
called morning-after pills.) It's his approach to gun
control, his reactionary approach to civil rights
legislation, his opposition to lifesaving needle exchange
programs or his insistence that drug treatment programs are a
sheer waste of money since junkies can--to quote an old Nat
King Cole tune--simply ``Straighten Up and Fly Right.'' Only
experience teaches otherwise.
It might be one thing if George W. Bush had won a mandate
for such policies. But he did not even win the popular vote.
In no way did the country register its support or even tacit
approval of the ``soft bigotry'' that

[[Page S944]]

Ashcroft represents. It does not matter that he says he will
administer laws he doesn't particularly like; it matters only
that he is unsuited by rhetoric, ideology and political
conduct to lead our criminal justice system.
If confirmed, Ashcroft would be instrumental in picking the
next generation of federal judges. Bush has already declared
himself a committed delegator who will CEO the federal
government from the Oval Office. (He has a Harvard MBA, don't
forget.) If that's the case--and a man who was among the last
to know his vice presidential nominee had suffered a heart
attack clearly delegates to a fare-thee-well--then the job of
picking federal judges will be left to Ashcroft. The federal
bench is going to look like the faculty lounge at Bob Jones
University.
John Ashcroft must be laughing to himself. He knows that if
the shoe were on the other foot, he would never confirm an
attorney general who had views so antiethical to his own.
Maybe he'd find something in the Bible or, as he did with the
judicial nomination of Ronnie White, distort the record, but
he would be true to his beliefs. His opponents should be true
to theirs.
____

[From the Chicago Tribune, Jan. 16, 2001]

The Confederacy's Favorite Cabinet Nominee

(By Derrick Z. Jackson)

If the Senate Judiciary Committee straightens its backbone
rather than slap the back of attorney general nominee John
Ashcroft, we may get to see why his hallucinations about Bull
Run will make him a bull in the china closet of civil rights.
Any serious line of questioning should start like this:
Sen. Ashcroft, you praised Southern Partisan magazine for
``defending'' 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.''
Let's explore what you meant by that.
Senator, why are you, in the year 2001, praising Davis, the
president of the Confederacy, who personally italicized the
portions of the Constitution that preserved slavery? Why do
you laud a man who said white superiority over African-
Americans was ``stamped from the beginning, marked in decree
and prophecy''?
Why do you love a man whose vice president, Alexander
Stephens, said the ``cornerstone'' of the Confederacy ``rests
upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white
man; that slavery, subordination, to the superior race, is
his natural and moral condition''?
Why do you complain about Davis being maligned by
historians when Davis tried to rewrite history? He said on
the floor of the U.S. Senate in 1860 that ``Negroes formed
but a small part of people of the southern states.''
For the record, in 1860 black people were 55 percent of the
population in Davis' home state of Mississippi, 58 percent of
South Carolina, and between a third to a half of the people
of most of the rest of the slave states.
Now, Senator, I am reading this sentence again, where you
say we've all got to stand up or else we'll be taught that
Davis, Lee, and Jackson were subscribing their ``sacred
fortunes'' to some ``perverted'' agenda. That sounds a lot
like what Davis said in his first Confederate inaugural
address when he said the North ``would pervert that most
sacred of all trusts.''
Senator, since we know that that sacred trust was slavery,
what is it that you are trying to say? Does that mean you
will not investigate charges of black voter fraud in Florida?
Senator, let's move on to Lee. You say today's history
books ``make no mention of Lee's military genius!'' Why is
that so important to you when the same Lee called Mexicans
``idle worthless and vicious''? Why do you praise a man who
said as he exterminated Indians: ``The whole race is
extremely uninteresting . . . they are not worth it.'' Where
can we find Lee's genius in saying that killing Indians was
``the only corrective they understand and the only way in
which they can be taught to keep within their own limits''?
Why is Lee so good when he justified the ripping of black
people out of Africa to enslave them by saying, ``The blacks
are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally,
socially, and physically. The painful discipline they are
undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race''?
Why does Lee need to be revered when his troops, like other
Confederate divisions, hated free black people so much that
they sometimes massacred defeated black Union soldiers even
though they had thrown down their arms in surrender?
Senator, may I read you a passage from the new book, ``The
Making of Robert E. Lee,'' by Michael Fellman? A Confederate
major wrote in 1864 after one battle, ``such slaughter I have
not witnessed upon any battlefield anywhere.
``Their men were principally Negroes and we shot them down
until we got near enough and then run them through with the
bayonet . . . We was not very particular whether we captured
or killed them, the only thing we did not like to be pestered
burying the heathens.''
Senator, why do you praise Lee when, after the Civil War,
he actively resisted Reconstruction? Lee said white people
are ``inflexibly opposed to any system of laws that would
place the political power of the country in the hands of the
Negro race.'' He said black people lacked the ``intelligence
. . . necessary to make them safe repositories of political
power.''
Senator, thank you, but in light of your reverence for such
men, we'll be asking President-elect George W. Bush to
appoint a less antebellum attorney general. As you leave,
stop by the front desk. The clerk will arrange for you to
participate in a Civil War re-enactment in the slave state of
your choice. Please send us a photo of your experience. We
would love to see who you dressed up as. We're betting
against Frederick Douglass.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I don't want to leave the impression in
this Chamber that there is some kind of unanimity of law enforcement in
opposition to Judge Ronnie White. In fact, a very substantial number in
law enforcement in Missouri wrote to us, wrote to the Members of the
Senate, and said they strongly supported Judge Ronnie White. One of the
leading law enforcement organizations wrote to us and said they were
distressed that he was not confirmed on the basis that somehow he might
be pro-criminal.
The record showed that he voted with appointees by then-Governor
Ashcroft something like 95 or 96 percent of the time in death penalty
cases.
Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. LEAHY. Of course.
Mr. NICKLES. Just for a point of clarification, is the Senator
referring to the Fraternal Order of Police sending a letter in support
of Judge White?
Mr. LEAHY. Yes.
Mr. NICKLES. Wasn't that letter sent after Judge White was defeated?
Mr. LEAHY. Indeed, it was.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print additional editorials
and material regarding the nomination in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From Newsday]

Ashcroft's Rights Do Not Include Being AG

(By Clarence Page)

Now that George W. Bush has nominated Sen. John Ashcroft
(R-Mo.) to be attorney general, it would not be inappropriate
for Ashcroft's fellow senators to treat him as fairly as he
treated Judge Ronnie White.
In other words, will they tar him as an extremist? Will
they roast him, not for his personal qualifications, which is
what confirmation hearings are supposed to be about, but for
his personal beliefs? Will they paint him as an extremist and
distort his record without giving him an opportunity to
respond? That was how Ashcroft handled President Bill
Clinton's nomination of Judge Ronnie White to the federal
bench in 1999. Civil rights groups are particularly angry
that Ashcroft led the successful party-line fight to defeat
White.
Ashcroft painted White's opinions as ``the most anti-death-
penalty judge on the Missouri Supreme Court'' and said that
his record was ``outside the court's mainstream.'' Actually,
whether you agree with him or not, White can hardly be called
``pro-criminal'' or ``outside the mainstream.'' Court records
show that White voted to uphold death sentences in 41 out of
59 capital cases that came before him on the state supreme
court. In most of the other cases, he voted with the majority
of his fellow justices, including those appointed by Ashcroft
when he was Missouri governor.
In fact, three Ashcroft appointees voted to reverse the
death penalty a greater number of times than White did.
On the Senate floor, Ashcroft singled out two of the only
three death-penalty cases in which White was the sole
dissenter. In one of them, White questioned whether the
defendant's right to effective counsel had been violated.
Whether you agree or not, you don't have to be ``pro-
criminal'' to value the rights of the accused, especially in
a death-penalty case. In the other, White questioned whether
the lower court judge, Earl L. Blackwell of Jefferson County
was biased and should have recused himself in a trial that
began the morning after Blackwell issued a controversial
campaign statement.
Blackwell, explaining in a press release why he had
switched to the Republican Party, said, ``The truth is that I
switched to the Republican Party, said, ``The truth is that I
have noticed in recent years that the Democrat Party places
far too much emphasis on representing minorities such as
homosexuals, people who don't want to work and people with a
skin that's any color but white.'' Again, the judge has the
right to express his views, but you don't have to be an
extremist to understand why White, the first African American
to sit on the Missouri Supreme Court, might question that
judge's even-handedness.
When Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) asked White if he opposed
the death penalty, White said, ``Absolutely not.'' But White
did not get a chance to rebut Ashcroft's charges because
Ashcroft did not raise them until

[[Page S945]]

months after White's confirmation hearings. This tactic was
characterized as ``delay and ambush'' by Elliot Mincberg,
vice president and legal director of People for the American
Way, one of several liberal groups that oppose Ashcroft's
confirmation.
To charge that Ashcroft is a bigot, as some have done,
misses the point. He has a right to express strong views
without being called names. He has a right to oppose
affirmative action and gay rights, as he has done in the past
with other nominations. He has a right to favor a ``right to
life'' until someone has been sentenced to death.
But he does not have a right to be attorney general.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the four pillars of the
liberal establishment--civil rights, abortion rights,
organized labor and environmental protection--have begun to
rally their opposition to his confirmation.
Why, they ask, should this country have an attorney general
who opposes sensitive laws that he is supposed to enforce?
Ashcroft will have a chance to answer that question in his
confirmation hearings. The Senate will let him offer his side
of the story. That's more than Ashcroft gave Ronnie White.
____

[From the DesMoines Register, Jan. 5, 2001]

Uneasy With Ashcroft

Will he enforce the laws even-handedly--even those he
disagrees with?
The record of Senator John Ashcroft inspires no confidence
that he'll enforce the laws of the land impartially as
attorney general of the United States.
The Missourian, who lost his re-election bid to the Senate
this fall, vigorously opposes abortion rights under virtually
all circumstances. So would he fully enforce federal laws
safeguarding abortion clinics from violence and harassment?
Will he actively protect the legal right of women to choose
even though he personally thinks women should not have that
right?
Ashcroft is President-elect George W. Bush's nominee to be
the next attorney general. As head of the Justice Department,
he would be in charge of overseeing the FBI, enforcing
antitrust laws, litigating on the government's behalf and
enforcing the civil rights of citizens, among other things.
How interested in assuring civil rights is Ashcroft? He's
been criticized for his opposition to the elevation of
Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White, an African-
American, to the federal bench. Ashcroft called White ``pro-
criminal,'' even though White had voted to uphold the death
penalty in 41 of 59 cases--said to be about the same share as
that of the judges whom Ashcroft appointed when he was
governor. Consider that along with Ashcroft's failed fight to
keep David Satcher, a respected black physician, from
becoming surgeon general because Satcher is against a ban on
late-term abortions. And in 1999, Ashcroft accepted an
honorary degree from Bob Jones University in South Carolina,
which at that time prohibited interracial dating.
Bush Cabinet selections such as moderate African-American
Colin Powell for secretary of state don't soften the hard-
line insensitivity Ashcroft presents. He is not a leader who
brings people together.
Those who share Ashcroft's religious conservatism are no
doubt heartened by the expectation that their points of view
will be well represented. But all Americans should at least
be comfortable that the next attorney general will be fair-
minded and even-handed as the nation's chief law-enforcement
officer.
Before confirming him, the Senate should expect a pledge
from Ashcroft that he will enforce the laws of the land as
they exist, not as he would like them to be.
The Missourian vigorously opposes abortion rights under
virtually all circumstances. So would he fully enforce laws
safeguarding clinics?
____

[From the New York Times, Jan. 4, 2001]

Fairness for Whom?

(By Bob Herbert)

We keep hearing that George W. Bush's choice for attorney
general, John Ashcroft, is a man of honor, a stalwart when it
comes to matters of principle and integrity. Former Senate
colleagues are frequently quoted as saying that while they
disagree with his ultra-conservative political views, they
consider him to be a trustworthy, fair-minded individual.
Spare me. The allegedly upright Mr. Ashcroft revealed
himself as a shameless and deliberately destructive liar in
1999 when, as the junior senator from Missouri, he launched a
malacious attack against a genuinely honorable man, Ronnie
White, who had been nominated by the president to a federal
district court seat.
Justice White was a distinguished jurist and the first
black member of the Missouri Supreme Court. Mr. Ashcroft, a
right-wing zealot with a fondness for the old Confederacy,
could not abide his elevation to the federal bench. But there
were no legitimate reasons to oppose Justice White's
confirmation by the Senate. So Mr. Ashcroft reached into the
gutter and scooped up a few handfuls of calumny to throw at
the nominee.
He declared that Justice White was soft on crime. Worse, he
was ``pro-criminal.'' The judge's record, according to Mr.
Ashcroft, showed ``a tremendous bent toward criminal
activity.'' As for the death penalty, that all-important
criminal justice barometer--well, in Mr. Ashcroft's view, the
nominee was beyond the pale. He said that Ronnie White was
the most anti-death-penalty judge on the State Supreme Court.
Listen closely: None of this was true. But by the time Mr.
Ashcroft finished painting his false portrait of Justice
White, his republican colleagues had fallen into line and
were distributing a memo that described the nominee as
``notorious among law enforcement officers in his home state
of Missouri for his decisions favoring murderers, rapists,
drug dealers and other heinous criminals.''
This was a sick episode. Justice White was no friend of
criminals. And a look at the record would have shown that
even when it came to the death penalty he voted to uphold
capital sentences in 70 percent of the cases that came before
him. There were times when he voted (mostly with the
majority) to reverse capital sentences because of procedural
errors. But as my colleague Anthony Lewis pointed out last
week, judges appointed by Mr. Ashcroft when he was governor
of Missouri voted as often as Justice White--in some cases,
more often--to reverse capital sentences.
But the damage was done. Mr. Ashcroft's unscrupulous, mean-
spirited attack succeeded in derailing the nomination of a
fine judge. The confirmation of Justice White was defeated by
Republicans in a party-line vote. The Alliance for Justice,
which monitors judicial selections, noted that it was the
first time in almost half a century that the full Senate had
voted down a district court nominee.
The Times, in an editorial, said the Republicans had
reached ``a new low'' in the judicial confirmation process.
The headline on the editorial was ``A Sad Judicial Mugging.''
So much for the fair-minded Mr. Ashcroft.
A Republican senator, who asked not to be identified, told
me this week that he could not justify Mr. Ashcroft's
treatment of Ronnie White, but that it would be wrong to
suggest that the attack on his nomination was racially
motivated.
That may or may not be so. It would be easier to believe if
Mr. Ashcroft did not have such a dismal record on matters
related to race. As Missouri's attorney general he was
opposed to even a voluntary plan to desegregate schools in
metropolitan St. Louis. Just last year he accepted an
honorary degree from Bob Jones University, school that is
notorious for its racial and religious intolerance. And a
couple of years ago, Mr. Ashcroft gave a friendly interview
to Southern Partisan magazine, praising it for helping to
``set the record straight'' about issues related to the Civil
War.
Southern Partisan just happens to be a rabid neo-
Confederate publication that ritually denounces Abraham
Lincoln, Martin Luther King Jr. and other champions of
freedom and tolerance in America.
This is the man George W. Bush has carefully chosen to be
the highest law enforcement officer in the nation. That
silence that you hear is the sound of black Americans not
celebrating.
____

[From Time Magazine, Jan. 2, 2001]

The Wrong Choice for Justice

(By Jack E. White)

What was president-elect George W. Bush thinking when he
selected John Ashcroft as his nominee for Attorney General?
That since he was designating three superbly qualified
African Americans for high-level positions--Secretary of
State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice and Secretary of Education Rod Paige--blacks would
somehow overlook Ashcroft's horrendous record on race? Or
that it was compassionately conservative for Bush to hire a
man who had just lost re-election as Missouri's junior U.S.
Senator to a dead man? (Governor Mel Carnahan, who died in a
plane crash during the campaign, won the seat, and his widow
is serving in his place.) It certainly couldn't have been
that appointing Ashcroft would enhance Bush's image as a
uniter, not a divider. Ashcroft's positions on civil rights
issues are about as sensitive as a hammer blow to the head.
It's puzzling, because the nomination of an extremist like
Ashcroft is so needlessly out of synch with the rest of
Bush's utterly respectable Cabinet choices. He could have
satisfied the right by selecting Oklahoma Governor Frank
Keating, who is as tough on crime as Ashcroft, yet far less
controversial. But as we are about to find out, Ashcroft
won't be confirmed without a fight. The angriest coalition of
liberal, civil rights and feminist organizations Washington
has seen since the 1987 battle over Supreme Court nominee
Robert Bork is lining up to oppose him. The opposition's
leaders concede that as a former member of the club, Ashcroft
would normally sail through the Senate. But since Ashcroft
has been on the wrong side of every social issue from
affirmative action to hate-crimes legislation and women's
rights, there may be a chance to peel off enough moderate
Republicans to make him the first Cabinet appointee to be
bounced since 1989, when John Tower lost his chance to be
Secretary of Defense for President Bush the Elder.
Pushing Ashcroft through will cost the younger Bush
considerable political capital, and might be only the start
of his headaches. As a leading G.O.P. strategist puts it,
``The risk will be that about every six months, [Ashcroft]
will do something that he thinks is clever or politically
interesting, and they will open their papers at the White
House and say, ``What the hell is he doing?'' Certainly there
is plenty in Ashcroft's record to unsettle fair-minded
conservatives--and to

[[Page S946]]

raise questions about the sincerity of Bush's attempts to
reach out to blacks. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted in
an editorial in December, Ashcroft ``has built a career out
of opposing school desegregation in St. Louis and opposing
African Americans for public office.''
When he served as Missouri's attorney general in the 1980s,
Ashcroft persuaded the Reagan Administration to oppose
school-desegregation plans in St. Louis, then used the issue
to win the governorship in 1984. Since his election to the
Senate in 1994. Ashcroft has consistently appealed to the
right wing of his party, even when his approach risked
appearing racist. He fought unsuccessfully against the
confirmation of David Satcher, a distinguished black
physician, as surgeon general, because Satcher proposes a ban
on late-term abortions. In 1998 Ashcroft told the neo-
segregationist magazine Southern Partisan that Confederate
war heroes were ``patriots.'' In 1999 he accepted an honorary
degree from South Carolina's Bob Jones University, which
hadn't yet dropped its ridiculous ban on interracial dating.
Most disturbing of all, as Ashcroft was gearing up a short-
lived campaign for the White House last year, he verbally
attacked Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White, an
African American whom Bill Clinton has appointed to the
federal bench, for supposedly being ``pro-criminal'' and soft
on capital punishment. The charge was outright slander. White
had voted to uphold the death sentence in 41 of the 59 cases
that came before him, roughly the same proportion as
Ashcroft's court appointees when he was Governor. No wonder
Gordon Baum, leader of white supremacist Council of
Conservative Citizens, in 1999 included Ashcroft along with
Pat Buchanan in the circle of politicians he'd like to see in
the White House.
Does Baum know something Bush doesn't? Can Ashcroft be
trusted to oversee the investigation of alleged voting-rights
abuses in Florida, which many blacks believe disenfranchised
them and delivered the presidency unfairly to Bush? This is
one nomination that, pardon the pun, should be consigned to
the Ashcroft of history.

Mr. LEAHY. The point is, the Fraternal Order of Police were dismayed
that he was defeated on the basis that he might be anti-law
enforcement. They pointed out that he was pro-law enforcement. The
concern has been expressed and was expressed at the hearing for Judge
White, concern that prompted an apology from some Republicans who had
voted against Judge White, regarding the way he was basically
ambushed--that is the expression that has been used--on the Senate
floor. We have never had a case where a judicial nomination has been
voted out of the Judiciary Committee, brought to the Senate floor, and
then defeated--in this case, on a party-line vote.
What happened and what has created a great deal of concern is that
here is a person who came from very humble beginnings, worked his way
through law school, was considered a highly respected member of the bar
in Missouri, became a justice of the Supreme Court of Missouri, and
then, sort of at the pinnacle of his legal career, was nominated to be
a Federal district judge. He went through the hearings in the Judiciary
Committee, was voted out by the Judiciary Committee by a lopsided
margin. It comes to the floor and then, in a party-line vote, is
defeated.
As my friend from Oklahoma mentioned, the Missouri State Lodge of the
Fraternal Order of Police indicated that on behalf of 4,500 law
enforcement officers they viewed Justice White's record as a jurist as
one whose record on the death penalty was far more supportive of the
rights of victims than of the rights of criminals. The president of the
Missouri police chiefs association described Justice White as an
upright, fine individual. They had a hard time seeing that he was
against law enforcement and never thought of him as pro-criminal.
One can debate a judge's position. Basically, as I said, he voted on
death penalty cases 95 percent of the time with justices appointed by
then-Governor Ashcroft. What bothered me and bothered a lot of
Senators--and bothered Republican Senators who publicly then apologized
to Judge White--was the fact that he was basically ambushed on the
Senate floor.
There was testimony before our Judiciary Committee that it was not
his vote on one particular case but, rather, the fact that he was made
a political pawn in a Senate race. That is wrong.
We should keep the judiciary out of politics. He was dragged in and
his reputation was unnecessarily besmirched. His career was damaged.
All he had worked for all of his life was for naught, and it was done
for political purposes.
That is what most people objected to. That was certainly what the
letters indicated that I have received--including concern expressed by
people who told me, first and foremost, they voted for then-Governor
Bush to become President Bush but felt that this was wrong.
Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, just to give a little different flavor, I
don't like the word ``ambush'' applied to Judge White.
To clarify again a couple of things that happened, the reason why
this Senator voted against him--and I would guess the reason why the
majority of Republicans voted against him--was because we received a
letter from the National Sheriffs' Association that said: Vote against
Judge White. They had good reasons expressed in that letter. In this
principal case that we are talking about, three deputy sheriffs were
murdered, and the wife of a sheriff was murdered, and Judge White was
the sole judge saying: Let's retry it; let's have a new hearing. The
Missouri law enforcement community was very opposed to that.
In addition to that, several Chiefs of Police contacted us and
suggested we vote no, and to review this dissent. We also heard from
prosecutors about this case and other cases who said vote no on Judge
White.
The Missouri Fraternal Order of Police sent us a letter in support of
Judge White, but they sent that letter after the vote.
Why did we have the vote at that time? Our colleagues on the Democrat
side were clamoring for a vote. Why did people vote for Judge White in
committee and then vote against him on the floor? The letters of law
enforcement did not come up until after he was approved by the
Judiciary Committee. I will grant my colleague from Vermont that later
there were other letters from law enforcement.
The letter from the National Sheriffs' Association was not before the
Judiciary Committee. I wish they would have written it before the
Judiciary Committee had voted, but they did it afterwards when it was
the pending nomination before the floor of the Senate.
One other clarification I wish to repeat is that I am just very
troubled by the allegation that he was opposed because of his race
because most people did not know what his race was. I sat through a
meeting where these letters by law enforcement were discussed, and
Judge White's race was never mentioned. I know that to be the case. I
sat in that meeting. That wasn't an issue. It didn't come up.
What came up was law enforcement opposition and at that time the only
law enforcement letters we saw were in opposition. If we had the letter
from the FOP saying confirm him, maybe that would have made a
difference, and probably would have. Maybe if the sheriffs'
organizations would have gotten their letter out before the Judiciary
Committee vote, it might have made a big difference in the Judiciary
Committee. Timing is important. But it is important to remember that
the reason why we had the vote on the floor at that time, I believe,
was because our colleagues on the Democrat side were clamoring for a
vote.
I don't like the word ``ambush.'' Maybe that vote should have been
delayed so we could have had a little more discussion of why these law
enforcement groups were against him. Maybe some might have been for him
given more time to enter into that debate. But that didn't happen, and
I wasn't involved in scheduling the vote.

But my point is I didn't feel as though he was ambushed. I do say
what was unique was that during my 20 years in the Congress, this is
the only time I can remember national law enforcement agencies coming
up and saying vote against this person, which is what they did in
contacting Members of the Senate. I think that is the reason Judge
White went down.
Be that as it may, there are lots of other issues dealing with John
Ashcroft.
Again, I think John Ashcroft is one outstanding individual who is
more than qualified to be Attorney General of the United States. And I
am absolutely confident that when he is confirmed, we will look back
and say he is an outstanding Attorney General for the United States of
America.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.

[[Page S947]]

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, just so the Record is straight on law
enforcement officers, it is interesting that there was no contact of
anybody on this side. Senator Ashcroft said the reason he stopped Judge
White was because of that urging of law enforcement groups. But then
subsequently, press reports and then the reports by the law enforcement
officials themselves and Senator Ashcroft's own testimony at his
hearing contradicted that; that he had instigated and orchestrated the
groups' opposition to Ronnie White. I am not suggesting Ronnie White
was defeated because he was an African American, but it would be hard
for anybody not to know he was insofar as that was mentioned at great
length in the debate the day before and the debate just before the vote
by those who were on the floor debating it.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 10:45
a.m. shall be under the control of the Senator from Connecticut, Mr.
Lieberman. He is so recognized.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I have known John Ashcroft for almost 40 years, as a
college classmate, a fellow State attorney general and a colleague in
the Senate. Throughout that time, our views on important issues very
often have diverged, but I have never had reason to doubt his sincerity
or his integrity. It strikes me in this regard that the often-noted and
sometimes derided notion that Senators judge their colleagues more
leniently than outsiders misses an important point. It is not that we
reflexively defer to our former colleagues. It is instead that we as
human beings find it tremendously difficult to pass judgment on those
we have worked with and know well. And it is because I have known
Senator Ashcroft for so long that I find the conclusion I have
reached--which is to oppose his nomination--so awkward and
uncomfortable. But that is where my review of the record regarding this
nomination and my understanding of the Senate's responsibility under
the advice and consent clause lead me.
Throughout my tenure in the Senate, I have voted on hundreds of
Presidential nominees. In each case, I have adhered to a broadly
deferential standard of review. As I explained in my first speech on
the Senate floor--in which I offered my reasons for opposing the
nomination of John Tower to serve as Defense Secretary--the history of
the debates at the Constitution Convention make clear that the
President is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in his appointments.
The question, I concluded, I should ask myself in considering nominees
is not whether I would have chosen the nominee, but rather whether the
President's choice is acceptable for the job in question.
That does not mean that the Senate should serve merely as a rubber
stamp. Were that the case, the Framers would have given the Senate no
role in the appointments process. Instead, the Senate's constitutional
advice and consent mandate obliges it to serve as a check on the
President's appointment power. As I put it in my statement on Senator
Tower's nomination, I believe this requires Senators to consider
several things: First, the knowledge, experience, and qualifications of
the nominee for the position; second, the nominee's judgment, as
evidenced by his conduct and decisions, as well as his personal
behavior; and third, the nominee's ethics, including current or prior
conflicts of interest. In unusual circumstances, Senators can also
consider fundamental and potentially irreconcilable policy differences
between the nominee and the mission of the agency he or she is to
serve.
On a few occasions during my 12 years in the Senate, I have
determined that the views of certain nominees--on both ends of the
political spectrum--fell sufficiently outside the mainstream to compel
me to oppose their nominations. In each case, I had serious doubts
about whether they could credibly carry out the duties of the office to
which they were nominated. In 1993, for example, I voted against
President Clinton's nominee to head the National Endowment for the
Humanities because I believed that his active support of so-called
college speech codes cast doubt on his ability to administer the NEH
appropriately. That same year, I expressed opposition to another of
President Clinton's nominees--his choice to head the Justice
Department's Civil Rights Division--because I feared that her writings
and speeches demonstrated an ideological vision of what the voting
rights laws should be that was so far from what they had been that I
was reluctant to put her in charge of enforcing those laws, regardless
of whether or not she had pledged to abide by the law as it existed.
In 1999, just last year, I concluded that a nominee to the Federal
Election Commission held views on the nation's campaign finance laws
that were so inconsistent with the FEC's mission that I could not in
good conscience vote to place him in a position of authority over that
agency. And just this week I reached a similar conclusion with respect
to President Bush's nominee to lead the Interior Department.
In short, although I believe that the Constitution casts the Senate's
advice role as a limited one and counsels Senators to be cautious in
withholding their consent, I nevertheless have opposed nominees where
their policy positions, statements, or actions made me question whether
they would be able to administer the agency they had been nominated to
head in a credible and adequate manner. Regretfully, I conclude that
such a determination is again warranted on this critically important
nomination--because of the record of the nominee and because of the
position for which he has been nominated.

The Justice Department occupies a unique role in the structure of the
Federal Government. As its mission statement declares, the Justice
Department exists ``to ensure fair and impartial administration of
justice for all Americans.'' No other agency every day and every hour
makes decisions about how and on whom to bring to bear the force of the
criminal and civil law, making countless decisions not only on whom to
prosecute or sue, but also on how harsh a sentence to seek and even on
who--in the name of the people of the United States--should face death
as punishment for their actions. No other agency has such broad and
sweeping authority to take away our citizens' life, liberty or
property--an authority we as Americans accept because no other agency
has more consistently sought to exemplify the rule of law and the
abiding American aspiration of equal justice for all. No other official
of the United States government bears as great a responsibility as does
the Attorney General for protecting and enforcing the rights of the
vulnerable and disenfranchised in our society. If we are to sustain
popular trust in the law, which is so important for ``domestic
tranquility,'' it is absolutely critical that the Department which is
charged with enforcing the law not only be administered according to
law, but also that the great majority of Americans have confidence in
the fairness and integrity of its leadership.
Unfortunately, Senator Ashcroft's past statements and actions have
given understandable suspicions to many citizens--particularly some of
those whose rights are most at risk--that he will not lead the
Department in a manner that will protect them. Others have detailed his
record so extensively that I need not do so again. Suffice it to say
that on issues ranging from civil rights to privacy rights, Senator
Ashcroft has repeatedly taken positions considerably outside of the
mainstream of American thinking.
When given the opportunity to consider laws as Missouri's Governor
and enforce them as Missouri's attorney general, he took actions that
today raise serious questions among many in this country about his
commitment to equal justice and opportunity. In speeches and articles,
he has spoken and written words that have particularly led many in the
African-American community to question his sensitivity to their rights
and concerns. And, when acting on nominees in the Senate--including
Judge Ronnie White and Ambassador James Hormel--he has made statements
that have raised sincere questions in the minds of many about whether
he will make fair and appropriate decisions regarding groups of
Americans that have frequently been victimized by discrimination.
The cumulative weight of these words and deeds leaves me with
sufficient doubt about Senator Ashcroft's ability to appropriately
carry out--and be perceived as appropriately carrying

[[Page S948]]

out--the manifold duties of Attorney General, so that I have decided
not to support his nomination.
Before yielding the floor, I would like to comment on one more issue
that has come up during the consideration of this particular
nomination: Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs and his public
profession of his faith. During the time since the President nominated
Senator Ashcroft, many have argued--too often privately--that Senator
Ashcroft's deeply held beliefs and his religious practices somehow cast
suspicion on his ability to serve as Attorney General. I emphatically
reject--and am confident my colleagues will reject--any suggestion that
Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs bear in any manner at all on the
consideration of his nomination.
All across this nation, tens of millions of Americans of a multitude
of faiths daily and weekly make professions of faith privately and
publically that elevate, order and give purpose to their lives. To
suggest that all of us who believe with a steadfast faith in a Supreme
Being as the Universe's ultimate Sovereign have an obligation to mute
one of our faith's central elements if we wish to serve in government
is not to advance the separation of church and state, but instead to
erect a barrier to public service by Americans of faith which is
totally unacceptable. To consider the private religious practices of a
nominee or a candidate for public office which are different from
most--whether Pentecostal Christian, Orthodox Jewish, Shia Muslim, or
any other faith--as a limitation on that person's capacity to hold that
office is profoundly unfair. It is wrong.
Nowhere in the first amendment or anywhere else in the Constitution
or in the jurisprudence surrounding them is there any suggestion that
of all the values systems that those in public life are permitted to
draw upon to inform their views and their actions, religion stands
alone as being off limits. Let us remember that the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights were drafted by people of faith whose belief in the
Creator was the direct source of the rights with which they endowed us
and which we enjoy to this day. To suggest that one may justify his or
her views on abortion, environmental protection, or any other issue
with reference to a system of secular values, but not by drawing upon a
tradition of religious beliefs, seems to me to be at odds not only with
the freedom of religion and expression enshrined in the first
amendment, but also with the daily experience of the vast majority of
our fellow citizens. The first amendment tells us that we may not
impose our religion on others. It most decidedly does not say that we
may not ourselves use our religion to inform our public and private
statements and positions.
It is Senator Ashcroft's record, not his religion, that we should
judge. I admire Senator Ashcroft for his private and public adherence
to his faith, but for the reasons stated above, based on his record, I
will vote against his confirmation.
Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to continue for 1
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while the distinguished Senator from
Connecticut is on the floor, I appreciate the last part of his remarks.
I will speak more about it later today.
I am concerned that there has somehow been this strawman put up as
though there is a religious test. As I and others stated at the
beginning of these hearings and as I stated on the floor, one of the
things I admire most about Senator Ashcroft is his commitment to his
family, his commitment to his religion. As practically everybody has
pointed out, whether we are for or against him as Attorney General,
these are two things we have admired the most: his commitment to his
family and his commitment to his religion. There should be no doubt
about that in the public's mind.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes that under the previous
order the time until 11 a.m. shall be under the control of the majority
party. We have gone over by 10 minutes, so the Senator is recognized
for 10 minutes. If the Senator's remarks are 15 minutes in length, he
can ask unanimous consent for that time.
The Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SHELBY. Mr. President, thank you for your courtesy.
Over the past 8 years, I believe our Justice Department has
floundered dangerously, challenging our most basic understanding of the
rule of law and starkly reminding us in America of the awesome power of
the Federal Government and the dangers that the exercise of that power
can present to a free society such as ours. I believe public confidence
in our system of justice has been seriously damaged in the past 8 years
and that our country has suffered as a consequence.
I believe it is time to restore the public trust, and I do not
believe there is a better qualified or more honorable man to do that
job than Senator John Ashcroft, our former colleague. Indeed, he is one
of the most, if not the most, experienced nominees for Attorney General
we have ever had in our history. He is one of the best educated, most
experienced nominees for Attorney General I have seen in my 23 years in
Washington.
What is most outstanding about Senator Ashcroft is not his resume,
although we could go on and on and on about that. It is not his strong
record of leadership as the attorney general of his State of Missouri
and his leadership as the Governor of the State of Missouri. No, it is
not his impressive legislative accomplishments in the Senate.
I submit what is most outstanding about John Ashcroft is his
character. It is the strength of that character that makes him so well
suited to be Attorney General of the United States. His principles and
his integrity underscore the kind of leadership the Justice Department
so desperately needs and the American people so rightly deserve in an
Attorney General.
John Ashcroft's conscience and his conviction ensure rather than
question his commitment to enforce the laws of our land fairly and
impartially. I do not believe even for a moment that Senator Ashcroft's
most fierce opponents truly believe he will not endeavor to enforce our
laws faithfully. While his conservatism threatens them, their real
fear, I believe, is that he will enforce the law without prejudice,
that he will be uniform in his application. This is because their
greatest ideal, I believe, is to use the Justice Department as a tool
to advance the political and social agenda of America by selectively
enforcing laws with which they agree and ignoring those with which they
disagree.
John Ashcroft, I submit to you, is not going to do that. As a man who
respects the rule of law and the importance of the public trust in our
justice system, I have no doubt that he will enforce the laws of the
land rather than creatively interpret them, twist or contort them to
match his personal beliefs.
I am pleased to support the nomination of John Ashcroft to be the
Attorney General of the United States. I sincerely believe he will
honor the office of Attorney General and he will restore integrity to
the Justice Department. I look forward to his confirmation later today
by the Senate and his future service to the United States of America.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska, Mr. Murkowski.
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I trust the debate is moving along
toward a successful vote here in the not too distant future.
I rise today to emphatically support the nomination of John Ashcroft
to become the next Attorney General of the United States. He has served
our Nation with distinction and with honor. I do not take lightly my
senatorial duties to review the qualifications of any nominee for this
office. The Attorney General is the Nation's highest law enforcement
officer, and without the strong and faithful execution of the laws we
pass, representative democracy shall fail. Our laws become mere words.
It is with this understanding, and a high personal regard for the
office, that I support John Ashcroft's nomination.
It has become clear to me and others, after following the unusually
personal debate on this nomination, that no one can question John's
qualifications to perform the duties of this job. In fact, I believe
one would be hard-pressed to find a more qualified, experienced
nominee. John has served with distinction, as has been noted and
stated, as attorney general, as Governor, and as

[[Page S949]]

U.S. Senator in this body. Not once during his long and successful
tenure as a public servant has he ever failed to uphold an oath of
office.
Think about that. We have had some experience in debating the merits
of the oath of office and just what it means. I think to all of us it
is a very sacred oath, a very meaningful oath, and one that should be
reflected on. John has never failed to uphold his oath of office in any
capacity. I know John Ashcroft does not plan on starting now.
Unfortunately, this nomination process has done a grave disservice to
a very decent and honorable man. We as legislators often disagree on
policy. I am sure I have disagreed with John on some issues. But our
actions as legislators are guided by our own personal convictions. We
must vote our conscience and represent the people who graced us with
their votes.
But we are not here to elect a legislator. Rather, we deal with the
office of the Attorney General of the United States. This is not John
Ashcroft the Senator but, rather, John Ashcroft the Attorney General.
Like all of us who have served in different roles throughout our lives,
I know John fully understands his position in government.
John will faithfully enforce our Nation's laws without a hint of
personal bias or a hidden agenda. He will uphold the rule of law for
all Americans, enforcing laws as they are enacted by the Congress. At
the end of the day and at the end of this debate, my vote will be cast
in favor of this nomination for one simple reason: John Ashcroft is a
man of his word. I have yet to hear anyone demonstrate in this debate
that he is not.
John has clearly stated numerous times that he will not allow his
personal beliefs to interfere with his ability to enforce the law. I
believe him. Throughout his long and successful career, he has never,
never given anyone a reason to doubt his word. I thank John for his
willingness to further serve our Nation and his willingness to
withstand the numerous unjustified personal attacks that have been made
on him. My thanks will be expressed in my vote in favor of the
nomination. I encourage my fellow Senators to do the same.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:10
a.m. shall be under the control of the Senator from North Carolina, Mr.
Edwards. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
Mr. EDWARDS. I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, the Nation is emerging from an extraordinarily close
election that has left much of the country feeling divided. It is a
time when all of us have an enormous responsibility to unite our
country. In order to unite this country, we have to turn to leaders who
inspire confidence and bring us together. In my judgment, with the
nomination of Senator Ashcroft, President Bush has fallen short of that
goal.
Why has he fallen short? Because in a time when our country
desperately needs a unifier, the President has nominated a man to be
the chief law enforcement officer of the country--the people's lawyer,
the lawyer for all the people--who has a long record of divisive and
inflammatory rhetoric which results in him being viewed as a polarizing
figure.
There are some folks who argue that his positions are just the result
of very deeply held beliefs. Some people believe his positions are
extreme. In the end, the one thing that is certain is that he is, in
the view of many Americans, a polarizing and divisive figure.
Senator Ashcroft opposed the nomination of Ronnie White, a very well-
respected African American justice on the Missouri Supreme Court, for
what at least appeared to be simply political reasons. In opposing the
nomination of Justice White, Senator Ashcroft used words and language
that not only were inflammatory but showed a fundamental disrespect for
a man who had lifted himself out of poverty, worked his entire life to
become a justice on the Missouri Supreme Court, and committed his
professional life to the fair administration of justice.
It is not unfair for some Americans to question whether Senator
Ashcroft can adequately represent their public interests given his
history.
Some argue that Senator Ashcroft, in fact, has given his word that he
will follow the law and enforce the law. The problem is that the
realities of the Justice Department are that there are daily choices
the Attorney General will be required to make. He will be required to
decide which laws will be vigorously enforced and which laws will be
defended from attack.
Senator Ashcroft has spoken very eloquently about the reasons he
pursued certain cases while he was attorney general of Missouri and why
he challenged certain laws and legislation. Whether you agree or
disagree with what Senator Ashcroft did as attorney general of
Missouri, you can count on the fact that those same situations can and
will arise, in fact, during the term of the next Attorney General of
the United States.
The Attorney General will be required to make daily decisions,
discretionary decisions, that are critical to the lives of very many
Americans. Again, it is not unfair for some Americans to question
whether Senator Ashcroft, even keeping his word, which he has given us,
will make decisions that will adequately represent and protect them
given his prior statements and actions. The question is whether he
will, in fact, be all the people's lawyer, as he has a responsibility
to be.
The post of the Attorney General is very different from other Cabinet
posts. The Attorney General advises the President about the
constitutionality of the legislation he is being asked to sign. He
makes recommendations to the President about judicial nominations. As I
already discussed and as others have discussed, Senator Ashcroft's
history does not support the notion that he will recommend candidates
for nomination to the Federal bench solely on the basis of their
qualifications and abilities to serve.

It is critical to note that the Attorney General is not the
President's lawyer, he is the people's lawyer. He represents our Nation
before the U.S. Supreme Court. Senator Ashcroft once called a U.S.
Supreme Court decision ``illegitimate.'' Again, such statements show a
fundamental disrespect for the rule of law which we believe is so
critical in this country. When our U.S. Supreme Court speaks, whether
we agree or disagree with them, they are the final word and they are
the law of the land.
It is very important to recognize also that the vast majority of the
decisions that will be made by our Attorney General over the next four
years will be difficult judgments made behind closed doors and under
the national radar screen, outside the television cameras. When so many
Americans believe that when the doors are closed and the lights and the
cameras are off, Senator Ashcroft will not protect their interests, our
responsibility is to do what is best for the country. The people have
to believe that the Attorney General is the people's lawyer and that he
will serve all Americans.
Some of Senator Ashcroft's supporters suggest that the opposition to
him is about his religion and about his faith. I want to make clear
that I think strong faith is an enormous asset in any public servant.
In fact, personal touchstones of faith and morality are critical to
providing leadership and governance in this country.
I served with Senator Ashcroft in the Senate. I know him, and I
absolutely believe his strong faith is deep and sincere. I applaud and,
in many ways, share the strength of his religious conviction and his
religious faith. It is certainly not because of his faith that I reach
the decision I do today. In fact, it is in spite of it.
In conclusion, at a time when our Nation desperately needs unifying
leaders, Senator Ashcroft is the wrong man for the wrong job at the
wrong time. So it is with deep regret that I will not be able to
support the nomination of Senator Ashcroft.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
(Disturbance in the galleries.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. allard). There will be order in the
galleries.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from Texas, Mr. Gramm.
Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I have to say that as I listen to this
organized campaign against John Ashcroft, I sometimes wonder if there
is not an effort to make the love of traditional values a hate crime in
America.
Fifty years ago, a person who set out to engage in public service
might unfairly be criticized for not being a

[[Page S950]]

member of a church or not professing religion, but who would have
thought 50 years later that a man would be mocked for holding a deeply
held faith? Who would have thought 50 years later that calling on the
Almighty to help you fulfill trusts that were given to you by your
State and your Nation would be held up to ridicule?
The plain truth is, we may have ``In God We Trust'' on our coins, but
we do not have it in our heart.
As I have looked at this caricature that has been created, that his
opponents claim is John Ashcroft, this is not the man I know. This is
not the man with whom I have worked for 6 years. This is not the man
whose son attended college with my son. This is not the man who, in
public or private in 6 years, I never heard say a mean word against
anyone. This is not the man who, remarkably, in my opinion, can express
himself without ever using profanity.
I hear him criticized for opposing judges with no good reason, and
yet in the case of Judge White he was opposed by 77 sheriffs in the
State. He was opposed by both Senators, and he was opposed and rejected
by the Senate on an up-or-down vote.
In short, when I look at all of these criticisms, and when I weigh
them against the bottom line facts, there is no basis for them at all.
I thank Jon Kyl and I thank Jeff Sessions for the excellent job they
have done in putting out the facts.
A person who fits the ugly caricature that has been presented here in
the Senate and around the country could not be the John Ashcroft I
know.
A person who fit that ugly caricature could not have been elected
Attorney General twice in the State of Missouri. A person fitting that
caricature would not have been chosen by his fellow attorneys general
to be the president of the National Association of Attorneys General. A
person who fit the ugly caricature presented here could not have been
elected Governor of Missouri twice, and would not and could not have
been chosen by his 49 fellow Governors to head the National Governors'
Association.
I know George Bush. I have a pretty good idea what is in his mind and
in his heart. And a person who met this ugly caricature that we hear
could not and would not have been nominated by George Bush. The plain
truth is that John Ashcroft is probably the most qualified person ever
to be appointed Attorney General.
I want to conclude with this thought. I am beginning to wonder if
this was all an effort to smear and defeat John Ashcroft or whether
this was an effort to cow John Ashcroft; whether this is an effort by
those who lost the election, who hold views that are alien to the views
of most Americans, to try, through smearing John Ashcroft, to cow him
in office, and in the process prevent him from carrying out George
Bush's agenda. I want to say I vote for John Ashcroft with the happy
knowledge that that effort will fail.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time does not expire until
11:15. Does he wish to yield that time?
Mr. GRAMM. I yield that time to my dear colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I rise today in support of John Ashcroft.
It will not take me long to make my point.
Although I represent the State of Montana, I was raised in the State
of Missouri on a small farm, and I understand some of the mindset that
is in that State. My mother and father both were active in the
Democratic Party. Mom was in the State Democratic Committee in that
State and was county chairman. She often wondered what happened to me,
but I tried to explain to her about it one time: When you see the
outside world, maybe your philosophy changes just a little bit.
I have heard nothing but those who would have reservations about John
Ashcroft enforcing the law. It would seem to me, after two terms as
attorney general in the State of Missouri, two terms as Governor, and 6
years in the U.S. Senate, it would surface somewhere that he would not.
I thank Senator Kyl and Senator Sessions for the research they have
done. I have talked to some of the law enforcement people in Missouri
and have done some research in my own home State of Montana. What I
have found is that we couldn't have chosen a better man to represent
this country in the halls of the Attorney General. I shall support
him--and support him wholeheartedly--because we have a man of substance
and of fiber.
I thank my good friend from Texas for yielding some of his time. I
also thank my good friend, Senator Wellstone from Minnesota, for
yielding some of his time he has reserved and allowing me to go at this
time.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45
shall be under the control of the Senator from Minnesota, Mr.
Wellstone.
The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have voted for any number of the
President's nominees to serve in our Cabinet, even though I am 100-
percent sure I am going to be in disagreement with them on some of the
really major public policy questions that face our country.
It is very rare that a Cabinet nominee is defeated by the Senate. It
does not happen very often. There is a presumption that the President
should be allowed to choose his or her people to serve in the Cabinet.
In addition, I do know Senator Ashcroft. I respect his religious
convictions. I have had personal interaction with him, which I have
enjoyed. And if he is confirmed, I will wish him the very best because
he will be Attorney General for our country.
But there is also a set of other questions that are important to me
as a Senator from Minnesota. To be the Attorney General, and to head
the Justice Department, is to be the lawyer for all the people in the
country.
I had a great man who worked for me here who passed away from cancer
this last year, Mike Epstein. When I first met Mike, he said to me: I
have been in Washington for 30 years, but I still believe in changing
the world. I hope we can work together.
He came to the Justice Department and worked with Bobby Kennedy,
dealing with enforcement of the Civil Rights Act; the Justice
Department, dealing with enforcement of the Voting Rights Act.
Colleagues, in Minnesota, when we were celebrating the life of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr., I was speaking at a gathering. I didn't expect
the reaction. I remember a book Dr. King wrote called ``Where Do We Go
From Here: Chaos or Community?'' I had this cadence where I said: We
have a long ways to go. And in the cadence, I said: We have a long ways
to go when people of color are pulled along the side of the road on
their way to vote because they are people of color.
I could not believe the reaction of the African American community,
the Latino community, the Southeast Asian community, and the Native
American community. They know that what happened in Florida was wrong.
Something went wrong there. And they are very mindful of voting rights,
the hate crimes legislation, the Violence Against Women Act, the Church
Arson Act.
The Attorney General is the person who advises the President on
judicial appointments, whether it be to a Federal district court, the
court of appeals, or the U.S. Supreme Court. I do not honestly believe
John Ashcroft is the right person to be Attorney General for our
country.
Some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--I just heard
this as I came in, getting ready to speak--have labeled disagreement
with this choice and questions that have been raised--I am going to
raise civil rights questions; this is my background; this is my life--
as a personal attack on John Ashcroft. I don't see it that way.
In fact, I said to John on the telephone: I never will savage you. I
don't believe in it. I hate it. Some of my colleagues have spoken on
the floor with a considerable amount of eloquence about that.
But my baptism to politics was the civil rights movement. I learned
from men and women of color--many of them young, and many of them old,
and hardly any of them famous, though they should be famous--about the
importance of civil rights and human rights. This is the framework I
bring to the Senate. This is why I am going to vote no.

[[Page S951]]

I don't agree with some of the positions Senator Ashcroft took as a
Senator, but that is not the basis of my vote.
Some of his views on abortion, to make abortion a crime even in the
case of rape and incest, are extreme and harsh. I once said in a TV
debate that John Ashcroft gives me cognitive dissonance because I like
him as a person and I don't understand how a person whom I like can
hold, sometimes, such harsh views. I don't agree with his position on
abortion. I don't agree with some of his other positions.
It is not his voting record. Without trying to be self-righteous on
the floor of the Senate or melodramatic, I have spent hardly any time
with groups or organizations except at the beginning when people came
by and I said: Please give me everything to read and let me think this
through myself.
I am troubled by the statements made by John Ashcroft and his role in
blatantly distorting the record of Judge White. I am going to say
``blatantly distorting the record'' because I think that is what
happened. The evidence is compelling. We heard from Judge White about
that as well. To call him a pro-criminal judge on the basis of the
decisions he had rendered--I don't want to say it was
``extraordinary''--crossed a line. I have a right as a Senator to say,
if John Ashcroft, as Attorney General, with the key position he would
be playing in terms of judges and the Federal judiciary, is going to
use the same standard and the same methodology he used to oppose
Justice White, then a lot of justices, a lot of men and women who could
serve our country in the Federal judiciary, will never make it. That is
one of the reasons I oppose this nomination.
The question was put to John Ashcroft in the committee about his
opposition to Jim Hormel: Did he oppose Jim Hormel because he was gay?
Senator Ashcroft stated that ``the totality of circumstances suggested
that Mr. Hormel would not make a good ambassador.'' What made up that
totality? Senator Ashcroft didn't attend Mr. Hormel's hearings. He
refused to meet with Mr. Hormel. He never returned any of Mr. Hormel's
calls. And in the hearing, John Ashcroft suggested or stated that Mr.
Hormel ``recruited him'' to the University of Chicago School of Law.
But Mr. Hormel says: I don't ever recall recruiting anybody for the
University of Chicago. And he can't remember a single conversation with
John Ashcroft over the past 30-some years.
John Ashcroft also told us, in the battle over the nomination, that
Mr. Hormel, by simply being an openly gay man who is also a civic
leader, 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 in which he is assigned,'' suggesting that
Luxembourg, as a Catholic nation, would find it difficult to receive
him.
The evidence is that Luxembourg openly embraced him. He was a great
Ambassador. It is also a questionable assumption, because it is a
Catholic country, that Catholics would not embrace a person, would not
judge a person by the content of his character.
I want to be clear that as a Senator, as I think about who should
head the Justice Department and who should be the Attorney General and
I think about my own life, when I was teaching, I used to insist that
students answer the following question: Why do you think about politics
the way you think about politics? Then I never graded their answer. I
just wanted them to think about what really shaped their viewpoint. I
have been thinking a lot about that in relation to this debate. There
are sets of facts and different versions of truth and all the rest.
What shapes my viewpoint? I am a product of the civil rights
movement. I am not a hero like John Lewis, but I helped. Men and women
in the civil rights movement were my teachers. This is a civil rights
vote. This is a human rights vote.
I know that John and his supporters will say: Judge us by what is in
our heart. For people across the country, people of color, people who
have a different sexual orientation, they judge you by your actions.
They judge you by what you have said. And I believe the Justice
Department has to be all about justice. I don't think John Ashcroft is
the right person to head this Justice Department.
It is not any one thing. I will be honest. I will admit a bias. I
don't have a great feeling for Bob Jones University. As long as we are
talking about race, they banned dating between students of different
races and continue to have a policy that states that gay alumni--yes,
former students--should be arrested for trespassing when they step foot
on the grounds of their alma mater. I don't have a good feeling for
this school. I am speaking within the civil rights and human rights
framework. I don't know why John Ashcroft accepted an honorary degree.
I don't know why you would want to honor such a school. I don't know
why you wouldn't want to renounce all of those policies.
It is just one piece of evidence, and I know John has made it clear
that he disagrees with some of what the school is about.
I don't understand the interview with Southern Partisan magazine. I
find it to be bizarre. This is a magazine which goes out of its way not
to promote racial reconciliation or healing but just the opposite. I
don't understand John Ashcroft's animus toward Ron White or toward Jim
Hormel. If it wasn't that, then it probably was some form of political
opportunism. I certainly don't understand the association with Southern
Partisan magazine and not even being willing to renounce this magazine
or acknowledge his error in doing the interview at the recent hearings.
I don't know why he refused to sign the pledge that his office would
not discriminate in its employment practices based on sexual
orientation. It is his first amendment right. The point is, we are
talking about somebody to head up the Justice Department.
I consider this to be a civil rights vote and a human rights vote.
That is why I am voting no. Despite what John Ashcroft said during the
hearings about his limited role in the State of Missouri on any number
of legal cases dealing with civil rights and human rights, I will
discuss his role in opposing what was a voluntary desegregation order.
I will highlight the testimony of one who knows John Ashcroft's record
in this area best, Bill Taylor. I will highlight Bill Taylor's
testimony because I consider him to be a giant. I am proud to say he is
one of my teachers. He is a real hero. He is one of those who joined
Thurgood Marshall's team in the years just after the Brown decision to
work for full implementation of Brown v. Board of Education.
Over two decades, he served as the lead counsel for a class of
parents and students in the St. Louis case. During the most active part
of that time, John Ashcroft was attorney general and Governor of
Missouri. Listen to the words of Bill Taylor in his testimony before
the Judiciary Committee:

I have thought seriously since this nomination about
whether Mr. Ashcroft's conduct in the St. Louis case was
simply that of a lawyer vigorously defending the interests of
the State or whether some of his actions went over the line
of strong advocacy and reflect on his qualifications to serve
as Attorney General of the United States. My conclusion is
that the latter is the case. I believe that in his tenure as
Attorney General, Mr. Ashcroft used the court system to delay
and obstruct the development and implementation of a
desegregation settlement that was agreed to by all major
parties except the State.
In so doing, he sought to prevent measures that were a
major step toward racial reconciliation in an area where
there has been much conflict, and to thwart a remedy that
ultimately proved to be a very important vehicle for
educational progress. John Ashcroft massively resisted this
desegregation effort.

I think the most troubling aspect of the Missouri school
desegregation issue, to me, is that John Ashcroft consistently used his
fervent opposition to the Federal judge's desegregation order as a
political issue in the campaign.
I want to be real clear about it because I am not going to get into
any pitched, acrimonious battle with anyone here on the floor of the
Senate. But the fact that I talk about his resistance to this voluntary
desegregation case is that I am so troubled by the ways in which he
went after Justice White; the fact that I talk about Bob Jones
University and Southern Partisan magazine is not because I am
interested in any personal attack. I already said I don't understand
how it is that a person I like so much personally can hold such harsh
views. But he is the lawyer for all the people of the

[[Page S952]]

United States of America if he is Attorney General. He will head up the
Justice Department. This is the Voting Rights Act. This is the Civil
Rights Act. This is the Violence Against Women Act. This is all about
whether or not you can have a man or a woman--in this particular case a
man--who will head the Justice Department and will lead our country
down the path of racial reconciliation.
We have a huge divide in the United State of America on the central
question of race. We have a question before us as to whether or not we
have a man who can lead the Justice Department for justice for all
people and who will be a leader when it comes to basic human rights
questions. He is not the right choice.
I thank the Judiciary Committee, Democrats and Republicans alike, for
the way in which they conducted the hearings.
I say to John Ashcroft, whom I am sure is viewing this debate and
listening to all of us, that if confirmed, again, I wish him the very
best. He will be the Attorney General for all of us in our country. But
I also would like to say, to me, this is, in my 10\1/2\ years in the
Senate, as close as I can remember coming to a basic civil rights vote,
a basic human rights vote, and I cannot support John Ashcroft to be
Attorney General and to head the Justice Department; not on the basis
of everything I believe in about civil rights and human rights; not on
the basis of the younger years of my life; not on the basis of being a
United States Senator from the State of Minnesota who had Senator
Hubert Humphrey, who gave one of the greatest civil rights speeches
ever at the 1948 Democratic Party Convention.
I am in a State which is a civil rights State. I am from a State
which is a human rights State which passed an ordnance that said there
shall be no discrimination against people, not only by race but sexual
orientation, for housing, employment--across the board. Therefore, I
vote the tradition of my State; I vote my own life's work ``no'' to
this nomination.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Leahy's
15 minutes be given to Senator Kennedy, the Senator from Massachusetts;
7\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh; and 7\1/2\
minutes to the Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer; and that Senator
Daschle's time from 12:45 until 1:15 be given to Senator Leahy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask that the following editorials and
materials regarding the nomination of John Ashcroft be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Courier-Journal, Dec. 28, 2000]

The Joker in the Deck

We know that George W. Bush would have to appease the
Republican Party's ultra-right-wing.
By nominating John Ashcroft for attorney general, Bush has
delivered, big-time. The booby prize goes to the civil rights
and human rights communities.
Though Ashcroft's a Missouri Republican--he was attorney
general, governor and most recently U.S. Senator--he's a good
ol' boy in the old South tradition.
``With the possible exception of Sen. Jesse Helms, I do not
believe anyone in the United States Senate has a more abysmal
record on civil rights and civil liberties'' said Ralph Neas,
president of People for the American Way.
Why, Ashcroft was given an honorary degree by the notorious
Bob Jones University, the South Carolina school that until
recently banned interracial dating.
Meanwhile, graycoats still fighting the Civil War (see Tony
Horowitz's book, Confederates in the Attic) must have been
glad to read the interview in which Ashcroft delivered a
strong defense of Southern ``patriots'' like Robert E. Lee,
Jefferson Davis and Stonewall Jackson.
Does he defend slavery, too?
It's scary that this sort of rhetoric fell so recently from
the lips of one who, as attorney general, will oversee the
FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Services, the Drug
Enforcement Administration and federal prisons, prosecutors
and marshals. The attorney general is often instrumental in
the selection of federal judges as well.
Wade Henderson, director of the Leadership Conference on
Civil Rights, likened Ashcroft's nomination as ``political
three card monte.''
That's a card game often played by hustlers who scoop up
the dollars of suckers convinced that they can pick the right
card from among three that the cardsharks shuffle around.
In other words, while many were starting to warm up to Bush
with his nominations of retired Gen. Colin Powell and
Condoleezza Rice as secretary of State and national security
advisor, respectively, the real joker in the deck is
Ashcroft.
``The issue is not whether a senator will vote against
Ashcroft's nomination,'' Henderson said. ``The question is
whether the Judiciary Committee will conduct a full and fair
confirmation hearing that will allow Ashcroft's complete
record and philosophy to be presented to the American
people.''
There already are clues as to what Ashcroft's tenure at the
Justice Department could mean.
For example, he opposed President Clinton's nomination of
Bill Lann Lee to head the Justice Department's civil rights
division. He opposed, unsuccessfully, David Satcher's
appointment as Surgeon General.
In fact, Ashcroft opposed several of President Clinton's
black nominees, especially for the federal bench. He spent
two years killing Ronnie White's reputation and elevation to
federal judge.
Ashcroft claimed that White, the first black on Missouri's
Supreme Court, was more committed to criminals than to
victims. In fact, in more than 40 of 58 death penalty cases,
White upheld the sentence, and when he didn't he often was
joined by judges Ashcroft appointed when he was governor.
We also know that Ashcroft is committed to the death
penalty, and is aggressively opposed to the right of choice
in women's decisions about pregnancy.
Kate Michelman, of the National Abortion and Reproductive
Rights Action League, notes that Ashcroft voted 42 times in
the Senate to restrict abortion, and he co-sponsored a bill
to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.
Ashcroft often received 100 percent ratings from the
American Conservative Union, and zero, or near zero, ratings
from civil rights and environmental groups. ``Bush is playing
a very sophisticated game of politics and manipulation,''
said Henderson, who noted that, in the federal hierarchy, the
attorney general is the crown jewel of the social justice
movement.
By nominating Ashcroft, Henderson said, the President-elect
is showing contempt, ``not unlike the contempt his father
showed in an equally important position, the U.S. Supreme
Court.'' Under the guise of bringing the best and the
brightest, he named Clarence Thomas.
``It's a cruel mockery that speaks volumes about that
administration's character and integrity,'' Henderson said.
With Ashcroft's history, unless there's an epiphany, I
wonder whether he will be able to transcend his own beliefs
to enforce the laws of the land--whether he likes them or
not.
With Ashcroft, George W. Bush confirms many African
Americans' worst fears. Moreover, Bush must be listening to
those who say he mustn't betray an important GOP base in the
name of bipartisanship.
Just forget about healing wounds; act like you've got a
mandate, Dubya.
For this liberal, the best thing about John Ashcroft's
nomination is its potential to bring even more blacks and
minorities to the polls in 2002.
____

[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatcher, Dec. 24, 2000]

Mr. Ashcroft and Equality

There is a case to be made that the Senate should confirm
John Ashcroft as attorney general. He has a distinguished
record of honest and effective public service. He is a smart
lawyer who was a strong state attorney general. And the
Senate should give some deference to a new president's
Cabinet choices.
In addition, Mr. Ashcroft has the institutional tradition
of senatorial courtesy on his side. He served in the club and
fellow senators will be reluctant to treat him badly.
Nevertheless, the Senate should set aside its sensibilities
and scrutinize Mr. Ashcroft's record as it relates to the job
of attorney general. In particular, it should investigate Mr.
Ashcroft's opposition to civil rights, women's rights,
abortion rights and to judicial nominees with whom he
disagrees.
The Ashcroft choice is at odds with President-elect George
W. Bush's image as a uniter. When Mr. Ashcroft was running
for president in 1998, he said: ``There are voices in the
Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion
conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to
reject those deceptions.'' So much for compassionate
conservatism and bipartisanship.
It would be an exaggeration to say Mr. Ashcroft is a
racist. It would be an exaggeration to say Mr. Ashcroft is a
racist. He recalls that his father, a noted evangelist,
urged him as a boy to read Richard Wright's account of the
trials of a black youth in ``Black Boy.'' Africans, whom
his father had met on church travels, stayed at the family
home in segregated Springfield, Mo.
But Mr. Ashcroft has built a career out of opposing school
desegregation in St. Louis and opposing African-Americans for
public office. As attorney general in the 1980s he lobbied
White House counselor Edwin Meese III to help persuade the
Reagan Justice Department to switch sides and oppose a broad

[[Page S953]]

school desegregation plan in St. Louis. He eventually
succeeded.
In the early stages of negotiating the voluntary city-
county school desegregation plan in St. Louis, Mr. Ashcroft's
office had actually taken a positive role. But Mr. Ashcroft
ended up opposing the plan because the state had to pay for
it and because he considered it an example of judicial
excess. He told the U.S. Supreme Court that he had ``little
doubt'' that ``a minority'' would be treated better in court
than the state.
Mr. Ashcroft's really inexcusable act was riding his
opposition to the St. Louis desegregation plan into the
governor's mansion. His so-called ``McFlip'' TV ad, accusing
Gene McNary of flip-flopping on desegregation, is credited
with helping win a tough GOP primary in 1984.
Mr. Ashcroft's U.S. Senate record deepens the concern about
his attitude toward African-Americans. He tried
unsuccessfully to block the appointment of Surgeon General
Dr. David Satcher. He scuttled the judicial nomination of
Ronnie White of St. Louis. He wrote, in a South Carolina
magazine, that, ``traditionalists must do more'' to defend
Confederate leaders ``or else we'll be taught that these
people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred
fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda.'' And he
accepted an honorary degree from Bob Jones University in
1999. (It's a wonder that Mr. Bush would want to remind
anyone of his own disastrous trip there.)
Mr. Ashcroft's successful campaign against Mr. White is
especially troubling. He opposed Mr. White for having voted
as a Missouri Supreme Court judge to overturn death
sentences. Mr. Ashcroft neglected to mention that some of his
own appointees had voted to overturn as many capital
sentences. Retired Missouri Supreme Court Judge Charles
Blackmar, a Republican appointee, criticized Mr. Ashcroft at
the time, saying: ``The senator seems to take the attitude
that any deviation is suspect, liberal, activist and I call
this tampering with the judiciary because of the effect it
might have in other states . . . where judges, who might hope
to be federal judges, feel a pressure to conform and to vote
to sustain the death penalty.''
Mr. Bush said Friday that he was not worried about the
White case because of Mr. Ashcroft's record of appointing
African-Americans to the bench. In truth, Mr. Ashcroft had an
abysmal record and never appointed a black Supreme Court
judge.
Mr. Ashcroft favors the most extreme form of a
constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. As state
attorney general he filed an unsuccessful antitrust suit
against the National Organization of Women because of its
economic boycott against states that opposed the Equal Rights
Amendment. More recently, he has opposed a strong federal
hate crimes law and a bill to bar job discrimination against
gays.
All of which raises the question: Is John Ashcroft the
person who should be in charge of the nation's civil rights
enforcement? Is John Ashcroft the person to protect women who
are harassed on their way into abortion clinics? Is John
Ashcroft the right person to screen federal judges? In short,
is John Ashcroft's commitment to equal justice deep enough to
qualify him to be the nation's chief legal officer?
____

[From the New York Times, Dec. 23, 2000]

Mr. Bush's Rightward Lurch

The right-wingers who were beginning to feel like
wallflowers at George W. Bush's cabinet dance can stop
complaining. Mr. Bush, who made his earlier selections from
his party's ideological center, threw a big bouquet to the
ultraconservatives yesterday when he chose John Ashcroft, the
recently deposed Republican senator from Missouri, for the
post of attorney general. The nomination later in the day of
Christie Whitman, the moderate Republican governor of New
Jersey, to run the Environmental Protection Agency tilted the
overall composition of Mr. Bush's early choices back toward
the center. But that could not mute the widespread dismay
over Mr. Bush's troubling choice of Mr. Ashcroft.
Mr. Bush is clearly hoping that Mr. Ashcroft's old
colleagues will extend him the usual senatorial courtesies
and confirm him with little dissent. But Mr. Ashcroft's hard-
line ideology and extreme views and actions on issues like
abortion and civil rights require a searching examination at
his confirmation hearing. He should not be given an automatic
pass. The Senate is duty-bound to determine whether he will
be able to surmount his cramped social agenda to act as the
guardian of the nation's constitutional values.
The attorney general has great discretion in deciding how
much energy to devote to protecting civil rights, broadening
civil liberties, keeping society free of crime, enforcing the
antitrust laws and making sure that the president and his
cabinet members are held to the same high standards--an area
in which the job's present occupant, Janet Reno, has been
deficient. More than any other cabinet officer, the attorney
general sets the moral tone of an administration.
The position should clearly be filled with someone with a
reputation for balance, fairness and independence. Mr.
Ashcroft is by all accounts honest and hard-working. Yet he
is also, judging by the public record, a man of cramped
vision, unyielding attitudes and limited tolerance for those
who disagree with him. His actions on racial matters alone
are enough to give one pause. As Missouri's attorney general,
he opposed even a voluntary school desegregation plan in
metropolitan St. Louis. He also conducted a mean-spirited and
dishonest campaign against Ronnie White, Missouri's first
black State Supreme Court justice, when Justice White was
nominated for a federal judgeship. Mr. Ashcroft claimed,
erroneously, that Justice White was soft on the death
penalty. As an added insult, Mr. Ashcroft also accepted an
honorary degree last year from Bob Jones University, a
bastion of the Christian right with a history of racial
discrimination.
Mr. Ashcroft has been one of the Senate's most adamant
opponents of a woman's right to choose an abortion. During
his political career in Missouri, he sought to criminalize
abortion, and he has consistently supported an extreme
constitutional amendment that would ban abortion even in the
case of rape or incest. Mr. Ashcroft has a poor record on
church-state issues and on gay rights, and a dismal record on
the environment. There is thus reason to wonder how
vigorously he will help Mrs. Whitman enforce environmental
laws.
With Mrs. Whitman, Mr. Bush has offered a far more
appealing nominee for high office. His pledge to elevate the
E.P.A. post to cabinet level is also commendable. The E.P.A.
is no less important than the Interior Department in
providing responsible stewardship of the nation's natural
resources.
On the plus side, Mrs. Whitman seems genuine in caring
about the environment, and as a Northeasterner, she is
intimately familiar with the problems of polluted air and
water. She joined with Gov. George Pataki of New York in
lawsuits aimed at curbing the pollution that drifts eastward
from Midwestern power plants, and she has worked to protect
the New Jersey coastline by investing in sewage treatment and
storm drainage projects. Although land conservation is mainly
Interior's responsibility, Mrs. Whitman demonstrated a real
appreciation for the importance of saving natural resources
for future generations when she sponsored a $1 billion open
space program, the largest in New Jersey's history.
On the minus side, she slashed the budget for environmental
law enforcement and stopped levying meaningful fines against
big polluters. That pro-business mind-set will be disastrous
if continued in her new job, as will her oft-repeated but
naive faith in ``voluntary'' compliance with environmental
laws. As Mrs. Whitman will discover, there will be times when
negotiating skills simply don't suffice. She must be willing
to enforce the law in the face of relentless pressure, not
only from the big interest groups but from her superiors in
the White House.
____

[From the Washington Post, Dec. 23, 2000]

Building a Cabinet

President-elect Bush has been assembling a team that for
the most part is impressive in stature as well as diversity
of race, gender and background. His designation of New Jersey
Gov. Christine Todd Whitman to head the Environmental
Protection Agency fits that pattern. She has a mixed record
on the environment, but on the whole she has pushed to
protect open space and to marry economic growth to
environmental responsibility. Unfortunately, Gov. Bush also
took a step yesterday that was inconsistent with this
otherwise constructive performance. John Ashcroft, recently
defeated as Missouri senator, has a history out of sync with
the Bush rhetoric of inclusiveness. For the crucial post of
attorney general, Mr. Bush should have reached higher.
Gov. Whitman, in seven years as New Jersey chief executive,
won passage of a $1 billion initiative that aims, over the
next decade, to save a million acres of open space from
development. Clean-air advocates give her credit for backing
tough federal air pollution standards and for efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions in New Jersey. Her
administration has strongly supported the new heavy truck and
diesel fuel pollution standards the Clinton administration
issued this week. She has fought ocean dumping and cleaned up
beaches, and she is currently heading a Pew Foundation-funded
commission to assess what national steps are needed to
protect oceans and marine life.
Gov. Whitman's efforts to make New Jersey more business-
friendly, particularly in the early days of her
administration, earned her sharp criticism from local
environmental groups. She was condemned for cutting the staff
and budget of the state's environmental agency in her first
term and for reducing the reporting requirements on toxic
chemical emissions. It will be important for her to make
clear in confirmation hearings how she intends to pursue
EPA's enforcement mission, but she brings stature and
experience to the job. The new administration's posture on
the environment will become clearer after Gov. Bush selects
his interior and energy chiefs and fills critical sub-Cabinet
positions. But Gov. Whitman's appointment, and Gov. Bush's
decision to keep the EPA chief in the Cabinet, are positive
first steps.
Not so the Ashcroft pick. Mr. Ashcroft handled with class
and sensitivity his defeat last month by a dead man, the late
Gov. Mel Carnahan. But his Senate tenure was marked by hard-
right stances on abortion rights, civil liberties and other
issues. He fought confirmation of many of President Clinton's
judicial nominations, including well-qualified moderates. In
the case of Ronnie White, an African American justice of the
Missouri Supreme Court whom Mr. Clinton nominated to a
District Court vacancy in Mr. Ashcroft's

[[Page S954]]

state. Mr. Ashcroft rallied the Senate's Republican caucus to
defeat the nomination in a manner tinged with racial politics
and unfair to the nominee. Gov. Bush campaigned as a
conservative, and he should be expected to appoint
conservatives to his Cabinet, as he has with impressive
choices for the State Department, the Treasury Department and
other posts. But the Senate confirmation process should
examine whether Mr. Ashcroft's particular brand of
conservatism is best suited to the attorney general's post.

Mr. REID. 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. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just six weeks ago, President Bush
nominated Senator John Ashcroft to serve as Attorney General of the
United States. Since then, the nomination has been a source of intense
controversy in the Senate and across the nation.
At the center of the debate is one basic question--will Senator
Ashcroft enforce the law fairly and vigorously. Today, I will cast my
vote against Senator Ashcroft, because I believe that he cannot do so.
My belief is based on Senator Ashcroft's quarter century track record
as a relentless opponent of civil rights--as an architect of a
continuing legal strategy to dismantle Roe v. Wade--as an outspoken
advocate of extreme Second Amendment rights--and as a harsh and unfair
opponent of the nominations of well-qualified men and women to
important positions in our government.
On the issue of segregation in the schools of St. Louis, Senator
Ashcroft testified before the Judiciary Committee that the State of
Missouri had done nothing wrong and had not been found guilty of any
wrongdoing.
But that's not true. On numerous occasions, the courts specifically
found that the State was responsible for the segregation.
Senator Ashcroft testified that he complied with all court orders in
the desegregation case.
But that's not true. In fact, the court ruled that he had a
deliberate policy of defying the court's authority.
Senator Ashcroft testified that he never opposed integration.
But that's not true. In fact, he referred to the St. Louis voluntary
desegregation plan as ``an outrage against human decency.'' And he
fanned the flames of racial division by campaigning against the
desegregation plan in his race for Governor in 1984.
On the issue of voter registration, Senator Ashcroft's record as
Governor is equally troubling.
In heavily white St. Louis County, he endorsed a policy of training
volunteers to register voters.
But in St. Louis City, which has the State's largest African American
population, he and his appointed election board refused to allow
volunteers to be trained to register voters.
In fact, he even went so far as Governor to veto 2 bills to use
volunteer registrars in the City.
As a result there were 1,500 volunteers involved in voter
registration in St. Louis County and zero in St. Louis City.
After Governor Ashcroft vetoed the two voter registration bills, the
voter registration rate in St. Louis dropped by almost 20 percent.
With this record, how can anyone believe that Senator Ashcroft will
be a champion of voting rights for all Americans, particularly African
Americans?
Senator Ashcroft testified that Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land, and that he would not try to overturn it.
But his record of three decades of non-stop attacks on a woman's
right to choose tell a different story.
As Attorney General of Missouri, he defended a state rule that
prevented poor women from obtaining abortions that were medically
necessary to protect their health. He even tried to prevent Missouri
nurses from providing basic family planning services.
As Governor of Missouri, he continued his intense assault on a
woman's right to choose. He made clear that his mission was to have the
Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade.
He boasted about Missouri's record of having more anti-choice cases
in the Supreme Court than any state in the Nation.
He even proposed legislation to prohibit many common forms of
contraception.
As a Senator, he has strongly supported a Constitutional Amendment to
ban abortions--even in cases of rape or incest.
The power of the Attorney General is vast. The person who holds that
position must have a genuine commitment to enforce the law fairly for
all citizens.
But Senator Ashcroft has a deeply disturbing record on issue after
issue of enormous importance to millions of Americans.
Throughout his long career, he has been a relentless opponent of many
fundamental rights. He's wrong on civil rights--wrong on a woman's
right to choose--wrong on needed steps to keep guns out of the hands of
criminals and children. He's wrong on many other fundamental issues,
and he's the wrong choice to be Attorney General of the United
States. It is wrong to send him to be the Attorney General of the
United States. I intend to vote no.

I withhold the remainder of my time and 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. SCHUMER. 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. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I spoke at length yesterday about the
deep sense of pain and sadness and fear engendered by this nomination.
It has not been an easy few weeks for those who have been involved.
Whatever the result today, scars remain. There are some scars, of
course, on Senator Ashcroft, but he is a strong and God-fearing man and
I know he will recover from those and I hope and pray that he does.
There are scars on the Senate in terms of our bipartisanship and
ability to work together. Again, I think the desire for bipartisanship
is strong in this body, and I don't think those scars will be
permanent. There are some scars from the initial days of the Presidency
of George Bush, who had campaigned for inclusiveness, bringing people
together. This nomination clearly did not do that, whatever else it has
done.
Again, most of the other President's nominees, this nomination
notwithstanding, have been bipartisan nominees, and hopefully while
this is clearly a setback in bringing people together in that
bipartisanship, it is not going to be a problem.
I have made my views known on the floor and in committee as to why
John Ashcroft does not deserve to be our Attorney General, despite his
career in public service, despite his deep faith, and despite the fact
that he is seen as an honorable man by most in this body.
But I hope one thing. Out of the scar tissue and the divisiveness and
the argument we have had, I hope something good comes about, and that
is this: I hope the President has seen the sadness and the pain and the
fear engendered by this nomination. I hope when he nominates people to
the U.S. Supreme Court we will not have a repeat of what has happened
today. I hope he nominates somebody of intelligence and judicious
temperament and devotion to fairness. But I hope he nominates somebody
who unites the American people, who brings us together, who is not
identified with one extreme faction--either on the far right or the far
left.
I do not expect George Bush to nominate a liberal to the Supreme
Court, but I hope and pray this nomination has taught us that rather
than a nomination of somebody on the extreme, when it deals with the
judicial issues, the legal issues that affect us, it is much better off
for either a Democrat or Republican President to nominate a moderate--a
thoughtful jurist but a moderate.
I think what has happened with the Ashcroft nomination in terms of
divisiveness would look small compared to the divisiveness that would
occur if someone of Senator Ashcroft's beliefs were nominated to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
At the end of the day we will all vote what we think is best. We will
each

[[Page S955]]

vote our conscience. But I think every one of us can take a lesson from
what has happened here in the last few weeks. That lesson is a simple
one. When it comes to enforcing the law, as the Attorney General does,
when it comes to sitting on the highest court of this land, moderation
is, indeed, a virtue.
I hope and pray all of us, including our President, will take from
this battle the view that his nominations for the Supreme Court will
better serve the Nation if they come from the middle, from the broad
moderate section of our political spectrum.
Mr. President, I will vote against Senator Ashcroft. I do that with
the conviction that it is the right thing to do in terms of my beliefs,
in terms of what is good for the people of New York, in terms of what
is good for the people of America. I hope we will not have to go
through a similar battle when Supreme Court nominees come before us.
Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New York
for his words. Could the Chair please advise the Senator from Vermont
what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time that was allocated to the Senator
from Vermont was reallocated, by unanimous consent, to Senators
Kennedy, Bayh, and Schumer.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. My understanding is the distinguished
Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, will be here presently. To use his
time, I will continue under the time reserved to this side. I would
like to commend a number of Senators for their contributions to this
matter during the day and a half we have been debating it.
I believe Senator Kennedy--we just heard him--made extraordinarily
persuasive, fact-based presentations on some troubling aspects of the
nominee's background. I hope all Senators listened to the remarks of
Senator Mikulski, who spoke to the heart of the question and put to
rest the false charge the Democrats are applying a narrow ideological
litmus test. I appreciate the eloquent words of her colleague from
Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, this morning. In the fashion to which we
have become accustomed from Senator Sarbanes, he discussed the history
of the nomination, including the hearing. I continue to marvel at the
expertise of the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his
comprehensive remarks distilled so wisely and lucidly from the hearing
record. Senator Durbin spent an extraordinary amount of time on this
during the hearings. I think the whole Senate benefitted from the
knowledge he gained from those hearings. Senator Levin presented his
characteristically thoughtful remarks and careful reasoning. I thank
him for that.
As I said, we heard just now from the senior Senator from New York,
Mr. Schumer. Not only did he speak so well on the floor, but all the
Senate was helped by his thorough work during the hearings and with the
kind of committee service that distinguished him on the Judiciary
Committee both here and in the kind of service he had in the other body
before.
We heard the fine remarks of my friend from New Mexico, Senator
Bingaman; the forthrightness of Senator Carper; the plain-spoken
eloquence of Senator Stabenow; the statesmanship of Senator Kerry.
I think of the words of the distinguished senior Senator from
Florida, Mr. Graham, who brought to the Senate the important
circumstances of his State and his concerns--unique among all of us
here.
Of course, my friend, the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid
of Nevada, has given the kind of help he always does in debates. It is
something the public does not see, but he is the glue that holds
everything together. Then, added to that was his own strong statement
on the floor.
I think of Senator Byrd, almost my seatmate in the Senate, with whom
I served for over a quarter of a century and thank him for sharing his
views.
I thank my Republican colleagues for their views, those Senators who
supported this nomination, as Senator Byrd did.
I think about what Senator Harkin said when he spoke again eloquently
today, and Senator Lieberman, who spoke not only about his relationship
with Senator Ashcroft but of his own concerns about the issues of
morality and of one's upbringing, and Senator Edwards, a person who
went from the courtroom to the Senate, and represents the best of both
places.
I also commend Senator Hatch, of course, for his management of the
debate.

I yield to the senior Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank our leader on this issue on this
side of the aisle, the senior Senator from Vermont, for the fine,
outstanding job of leadership and fairness that he has shown throughout
these hearings. Every witness who was called on got to testify. We had
plenty of time to question. All the questions were brought out in a
fair and strong way, but not in any kind of mean-spirited way. When
things began to drift a little bit out of hand, the Senator would wield
his big gavel that he had at the beginning of the hearing and his own
personal gavel that he wielded throughout. He did a wonderful job. And
of course his speeches on the floor and in committee have been among
the most thoughtful, erudite, and well researched of all of them. I
think I speak for all of us on the Judiciary Committee and in the
Senate as a whole: We really thank the senior Senator for the great job
he has done during these trying weeks.
I yield to the senior Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Senator from New York. I have often said how
much I enjoyed being on the Senate Judiciary Committee. One of the
reasons is that the Senator from New York serves there.
It is a committee where we often have spirited debates. We usually
debate the most interesting issues before the Senate, but I rely more
and more on the Senator from New York to boil down the essence of the
arguments and to lead that debate.
I am sorry the Senator from Utah is not on the floor at the moment,
but the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, and I worked very hard to put
together a hearing where both sides could be heard. I believe we did
that. In fact, unlike the usual practice here, both sides had the same
number of witnesses. If I recall, in this case, the minority side, the
Republican side, actually had one more witness. But we tried to make
sure that anybody who could add anything to the debate and should be
heard was heard.
Even during the hearings, we actually had people who were added at
the last minute at the request of Senator Hatch. He showed unfailing
courtesy throughout all that, and I thank him for that.
I see the Senator from Indiana in the Chamber. I ask unanimous
consent that the following editorials and materials with regard to the
Ashcroft nomination be printed in the Record:
A column by Steve Neal from the Chicago Sun-Times of January 31,
2001;
An editorial from the Christian Science Monitor of today, February 1,
2001;
An editorial from the Rutland Daily Herald of January 24, 2001;
A column by Stuart Taylor from National Journal of January 13, 2001;
A column by Stuart Taylor from National Journal of October 10, 1999;
and
An op-ed by Benjamin Wittes from Washington Post of October 13, 1999.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From The Christian Science Monitor, Feb. 1, 2001]

Ashcroft's Tough Tasks

President Bush asked the Senate to look into the hearts of
each of his cabinet nominees. Through careful, albeit
contentious, hearings for his nominee for attorney general,
John Ashcroft, the Senate tried to do just that.
In those hearings, Americans got a first, strong taste of
the rancor that can occur when the Senate, and the country,
is split right down the middle on social issues. The
controversy over Mr. Ashcroft's nomination broke along
clearly partisan lines.
Ashcroft may now be confirmed by the Senate, but the
Democrats have fired a warning shot over the Bush ship of
state. Their message: Expect more battles over conservative
legal appointments--to the Supreme Court or elsewhere.
Ashcroft's deeply conservative views on abortion, civil
rights, and guns were subjected to extraordinarily close
scrutiny by

[[Page S956]]

Democrats and liberal groups. Still, his critics were left
unsatisfied.
Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the Judiciary Committee's
ranking Democrat, summarized much of the concern over Mr.
Ashcroft's candor when he spoke on the Senate floor this
week: ``Most of us in this body have known the old John
Ashcroft. During the hearings, we met a new John Ashcroft.
Were the demurrals of his testimony real, or were they
delicate bubbles that could burst and evaporate a year or a
month or a day from now under the reassertion of his long-
held beliefs?''
The core issue is whether, as attorney general, Ashcroft
will put his own ideology above the law.
Supporters, such as Sen. Chuck Grassley (R) of Iowa, say
Ashcroft has demonstrated the integrity to maintain his ``by-
the-book approach to governing'' as he goes about cleaning up
a Justice Department he and others feel has lacked integrity.
The new attorney general's adherence to that standard will
be closely watched. As he promised the committee, he'll have
to ``vigorously'' uphold the laws of the land whether he
personally agrees with them or not--including the Supreme
Court's decision legalizing abortion, Roe v. Wade, which
Ashcroft acknowledged as ``settled law.''
Testimony regarding Ashcroft's opposition to the
appointment of a black Missouri judge to the federal bench
was particularly disturbing. The judge, Ronnie White, said
then-Senator Ashcroft distorted his record, calling him
``pro-criminal,'' based on his interpretation of a few of
Judge White's written decisions.
Even if Ashcroft's motives at the time were political, not
racial, the episode leaves doubts about his judgment among
African-Americans and others.
Ashcroft will have to work especially hard to surmount both
his critics and some elements of his own record, and to prove
to the country that he will be, as Senator Leahy said, an
attorney general ``for all the people.''
____

[From the Chicago Sun-Times, Jan. 31, 2001]

Some More Equal Than Others

(By Steve Neal)

The attorney general is supposed to represent all of us.
That's what is so troubling about John Ashcroft's
nomination to be the chief law enforcement officer of this
country.
Some of our more distinguished attorneys general served in
Republican administrations. Edward Levi restored integrity in
the Justice Department after Watergate. Elliot Richardson
showed great principle in resigning when Richard M. Nixon
ordered him to fire the special prosecutor investigating
Nixon's role in the scandal that brought down his presidency.
Herbert Brownell drafted the first civil rights law since
Reconstruction and recommended the use of federal troops when
the governor of Arkansas sought to block integration of
Central High School in Little Rock.
Each of these three men was committed to equal justice
under the law. Ashcroft doesn't meet that standard. Though he
is a person of ability and intelligence, his public record is
one of unfairness, intolerance and exclusion.
His role in sinking the nomination of Missouri Supreme
Court Justice Ronnie White for the federal bench was
disgraceful. Ashcroft twisted and distorted White's judicial
record. The Judiciary Committee, which had a GOP majority at
the time of White's nomination, recommended his confirmation.
Then Ashcroft waged a mean-spirited crusade that destroyed
White's chances. He was dishonest in labeling White's
judicial philosophy as ``pro-criminal'' and claiming that he
had ``a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' There is
no evidence that Ashcroft went after the African-American
judge because of his race. It is more likely that he attacked
White as part of his re-election strategy.
Ashcroft's record on civil rights, though, is alarming. As
governor and attorney general of Missouri, he bitterly
opposed court-ordered school desegregation in Kansas City and
St. Louis. More than two decades after the Brown vs. Board of
Education ruling made equal access to public education the
law, Ashcroft still was making the argument that it was
better to have segregated schools. As a candidate for
statewide office, he fanned racial tensions with his shrill
attacks on school integration. He didn't seem to care that
African-American youngsters were being denied an equal
education.
As governor of Missouri, he vetoed legislation that would
have boosted voter registration in minority communities. He
claimed that the proposed law would have led to voter fraud.
If he is confirmed as the next attorney general, he would
have responsibility for enforcing the Voting Rights Act.
During his Senate testimony, Ashcroft said that he would
not attempt to undermine Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court
decision that upheld a woman's legal right to have an
abortion. But he has spent his entire public career trying to
outlaw abortions or make them impossible to obtain. He is
opposed to abortion even in cases of rape or incest.
``Both now and in my first term as [Missouri] attorney
general,'' he told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in
1981, ``I have devoted considerable time and significant
resources to defending the right of the state to limit the
dangerous impacts of Roe vs. Wade, a case in which a handful
of men on the Supreme Court arbitrarily amended the
Constitution and overturned the laws of the states related to
abortions.'' Ashcroft has previously referred to the Roe
decision as ``error-ridden.'' Most Americans disagree with
that viewpoint.
In his written response to the Judiciary committee, he
vowed not to re-fight these battles because the issue had
been settled ``through the passage of time and reaffirmation
by the Supreme Court.'' But he never has stopped trying to
reverse this landmark decision.
Ashcroft was misguided in his assault on the nomination of
the openly gay James C. Hormel to be ambassador to
Luxembourg. ``Based on the totality of Mr. Hormel's record of
public positions and advocacy, I did not believe he would
effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the
most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe,'' he said in
1998.
Based on the totality of Mr. Ashcroft's record, he is less
than committed to equal protection under the law. This cold-
hearted man is unfit to be the people's lawyer.
____

[From the Rutland Daily Herald, Jan. 24, 2001]

No to Ashcroft

Democrats should not be shy about voting against John
Ashcroft when his nomination for attorney general comes
before the Senate Judiciary Committee and to the Senate
floor.
If they are afraid of being tarred as partisan extremists
for opposing Ashcroft's nomination, they ought to recognize
that Bush's decision to appoint Ashcroft was in itself an
unapologetic partisan action.
The Senate almost never rejects a president's cabinet
nominee, and the vote count suggests it will not reject
Ashcroft. It would be an extraordinary turn of events if it
did.
That's because Senate Republicans are lined up unanimously
on the side of their party and their president. That includes
Sen. James Jeffords, who is a member of a vocal quartet with
Ashcroft and who plans to endorse his appointment.
This is not one of those moments when the Senate's moderate
Republicans are inclined to stray from the party line. On
other issues--campaign finance, tax cuts, missile defense--
the Republican leadership will not be able to rely so surely
on unanimity within the party.
Ashcroft's nomination has also won the support of a few
Democrats, which assures him of victory in the Senate. But
for most Democrats, a no vote on the Ashcroft nomination
sends an important signal: that bipartisan progress is not
achieved by pushing the most extreme brand of Republican
ideology.
Under questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee,
Ashcroft felt compelled to repudiate an ideology opposed to
civil and women's rights. One wonders why Bush appointed him
if it meant he would have to shed the views that have shaped
his career. The likely reason is that Bush wanted to appease
the religious right.
Everyone was quick to praise Ashcroft's integrity and to
deny that he was a racist. But what kind of integrity is
involved in the attempt to smear another person's reputation,
as he did with Ronnie White, a judge who had been appointed
to the federal bench?
In many areas, Democrats are likely to cooperate with
Republicans for the sake of bipartisan achievement. It
appears that Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Edward Kennedy are
willing to work with Bush to put together an education
package. And Bush appears willing to court Democratic support
by gearing his education package toward low-income students.
In the same vein, Republicans such as Jeffords should be
willing to break the party line for the sake of campaign
finance reform, health care, and other initiatives that the
Republican leadership has long opposed.
The Senate Judiciary Committee was able to win concessions
from Ashcroft on civil rights and women's rights, but his
work as attorney general will involve far more than the high-
profile issues on which the interest groups always focus.
He will help shape anti-trust policy and the government's
position on the Microsoft case. He will help shape policy on
juvenile justice, which has been slipping back toward the
dark ages, and on sentencing policy, which has become
dangerously rigid because of mandatory sentences. He will
apportion resources within the Department of Justice,
deciding how much emphasis to put on civil rights
enforcement.
In electing a Republican, Vermonters might have expected
that Jeffords would maintain party loyalty in instances such
as the Ashcroft nomination. Jeffords will have many other
opportunities to show his independence, and Vermonters will
be watching.
In electing a Democrat, Vermonters expect Leahy to uphold
civil and women's rights. In voting no on Ashcroft, he will
be affirming that even with a Republican president, these
values should not be allowed to erode.
____

[From the National Journal, Jan. 13, 2001]

A Character Assassin Should Not Be Attorney General

(By Stuart Taylor Jr.)

Former Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., is an able and
accomplished man who won the respect of many Senate
colleagues in both parties. But he is unfit to be Attorney
General. The reason is that during an important debate on a
sensitive matter, then-Sen. Ashcroft abused the power of his
office by descending to demagoguery, dishonesty, and
character assassination.

[[Page S957]]

The debate was over President Clinton's nomination of
Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White to become a federal
district judge. Although too liberal to be picked by a
Republican President, White had shown himself to be an
honest, skilled, and sometimes eloquent jurist, well within
the moderate mainstream. But Ashcroft, leaning hard on
Republican Senators who would otherwise have voted to
confirm, engineered a 54-45 party-line vote on Oct. 5, 1999,
to reject White's nomination. Worse, Ashcroft claimed on the
Senate floor that Judge White had ``a serious bias against .
. . the death penalty''; that he was ``pro-criminal and
activist, [and would] push law in a pro-criminal direction'';
and that he had ``a tremendous bent toward criminal
activity.'' The first statement was a wild exaggeration. The
second was a demagogic distortion. The third was a malicious
smear.
Ashcroft is not the man to head the Justice Department. The
job is vested with such vast authority over the lives of
people great and small, and such symbolic importance, that
the minimum qualifications should include honesty, fair-
mindedness, and judicious self-restraint in the exercise of
power. Every new President is entitled to Senate deference in
choosing his Cabinet, even when the nominee's policy views
draw bitter liberal or conservative opposition. (Linda Chavez
might have become a distinguished Labor Secretary but for her
sad mistake of failing to tell Bush vetters up front what
they needed to know about her illegal-immigrant issue.) But
no President is entitled to put a character assassin in
charge of law enforcement.
All this would be true even if Judge White were white, if
Ashcroft had not expressed such fondness for the Confederacy,
if race were not an issue, and if Ashcroft were in tune with
the Bush pledge to be a uniter, not a divider. But White is
black. The racial context makes Ashcroft's orchestration of a
floor vote against a judicial nominee, the first since 1987
(when Robert H. Bork's Supreme Court nomination went down),
all the more deplorable. And Ashcroft's confrontational
advocacy of absolutist views makes him a divider, not a
uniter.
This is not to endorse the unfounded and tiresomely
irresponsible suggestions by some liberal critics that
Ashcroft's attacks on Judge White were motivated by racial
bias or hostility to antidiscrimination laws. Nor is it to
join the claque who would fight any conservative nominee for
Justice as racially insensitive and divisive. But it does
appear that Ashcroft was deliberately engaging in
inflammatory racial politics--in part to boost his own 2000
re-election prospects by hanging the ``pro-criminal'' label
both on Judge White and on then-Gov. Mel Carnahan, who had
appointed White and was gunning for Ashcroft's Senate seat.
Ashcroft must have known that accusing a black judge
(falsely) of being ``pro-criminal'' and of ``a tremendous
bent toward criminal activity'' would stir the worst
instincts of those voters who stereotype criminality as
black.
One result of Ashcroft's reckless roiling of racial
tensions is that he would have especially low credibility
with the vast majority of African-Americans, including
moderates and conservatives who eschew the race-baiting
rhetoric of victimologists such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson.
Indeed, people who hope to see the Justice Department move
away from its long-standing advocacy of race-based
affirmative action preferences (as I do) should wonder: Can
John Ashcroft be a credible advocate of making the law more
color-blind? I doubt it.
Deceptive rhetoric aside, is Ronnie White soft on crime?
Not unless one equates measured concern for civil liberties
with softness. According to Justice Department numbers,
White, as of October 1999, had voted to uphold 41 (almost 70
percent) of the 59 death sentences he had reviewed. He voted
to reverse the other 18, including 10 that were unanimously
reversed and just three in which he was the only dissenter.
(Some say that White reviewed 61 death sentences and voted to
reverse 20.) His rate of affirmance was only marginally lower
than the 75 percent to 81 percent averages of the five
current Missouri Supreme Court judges whom Ashcroft himself
appointed when he was governor.
Ashcroft stressed that Judge White had dissented from
decisions affirming death sentences four times as often as
any Ashcroft-appointed colleague. True. But does this suggest
that White would ``push law in a pro-criminal direction,'' as
Ashcroft said--or that Ashcroft appointees were rubber-
stamping unfair trials?
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. In a 1998 decision, the
majority upheld the murder convictions and death sentence of
a previously law-abiding Vietnam veteran named James Johnson,
who had suddenly turned violent. He stalked and killed a
sheriff, two deputies, and another sheriff's wife in a
horrifying succession of shootings that erupted out of a
domestic dispute. The only defense was insanity. The
immediate issue was whether Johnson should get a new trial,
after which he would either go back to death row or be locked
up in a mental hospital.
If Johnson ``was in control of his faculties when he went
on this murderous rampage,'' Judge White wrote, ``then he
assuredly deserves the death sentence he was given.'' But the
jury's consideration of the insanity defense had been skewed
by an egregious blunder. Johnson's court-appointed attorney
had begun by stressing that a rope-and-tin-can ``perimeter''
around Johnson's garage was evidence that he had been under a
delusion that he was back in Vietnam, at war. This was a gift
to the prosecution, which blew the back-in-Vietnam strategy
to bits by showing that the police had set up the perimeter.
Both Judge White and his colleagues faulted the defense
attorney (for inadequate investigation) as well as the
prosecution (for leaving the defense attorney with a false
impression of the facts). They differed only on whether there
was a ``reasonable probability'' that the jury might
otherwise have found Johnson insane. The majority said no.
Judge White said yes. His conclusion was plausible,
debatable, highly unpopular (especially among police), and
(for that reason) courageous. For Ashcroft to call it ``pro-
criminal'' was obscene.
In the second case, one Brian Kinder was sentenced to die
for a heinous rape-murder. Judge White's ``only basis'' for
voting to give Kinder a new trial, Ashcroft claimed, was that
the trial judge had said he was ``opposed to affirmative
action.'' False. In fact, Judge White's dissent termed that
comment (made in a campaign press release) ``irrelevant to
the issue of bias.'' Instead he stressed another,
``indefensibly racist'' assertion in which the trial judge
had contrasted ``minorities'' with ``hard-working
taxpayers.'' This cast grave doubt on the impartiality of a
judge who was to try a black man for murder in just six days,
Judge White concluded. His dissent was far more candid and
convincing than the majority opinion.
Pro-criminal? Some police groups, including 77 of
Missouri's 114 sheriffs, criticized Judge White's record. But
other law enforcement officials praised him as a good judge
and ``an upright, fine individual,'' in the words of Carl
Wolf, president of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association.
The smearing of Judge White makes the many testimonials to
Ashcroft's integrity ring a bit hollow. But quite apart from
that episode, it was most unwise for President-elect Bush to
choose Ashcroft for Attorney General. The reason is that
Ashcroft is an uncompromising absolutist with a bellicose
approach to issues ranging from gay rights and gun control to
abortion (which would be a crime, if Ashcroft had his way,
even in cases of rape and incest). He is also dead wrong (in
my view) on major issues, including his aggressive push to
cram even more nonviolent, small-time offenders who pose no
threat to society into our prison-industrial complex, which
has already mushroomed to 2 million inmates.
What would I be saying if it were President-elect Al Gore
trying to put the Justice Department under (say) Sen. Edward
Kennedy, D-Mass.--who smeared another judicial nominee (in
1987) by saying: ``Robert Bork's America is a land in which
women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would
sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break
down citizens' doors in midnight raids . . .''
I would be saying that a character assassin should not be
Attorney General. How about you?
____

[From the National Journal, Oct. 16, 1999]

The Shame of The Ronnie White Vote

(By Stuart Taylor Jr.)

The Democratic spin is that the Republican Senate's Oct. 5
party-line vote, 54-45, to reject Ronnie L. White's
nomination for a U.S. District Court seat in Missouri was
tinged with racism. At the very least, as President Clinton
put it, the vote adds ``credence to the perceptions that they
treat minority and women judicial nominees unfairly and
unequally.''
The Republican spin is, not surprisingly, quite different.
In the words of White's main critic, Sen. John Ashcroft, R-
Mo., White's record as a Missouri Supreme Court judge is
``pro-criminal and activist,'' and exudes a serious bias
against * * * the death penalty,'' even ``a tremendous bent
toward criminal activity,'' Indeed, said Sen. Don Nickles, R-
Okla. ``many'' Republican Senators ``didn't know what race
Judge White is.''
Which is the closer to the truth?
Numbers supply part of the answer. Judge White has voted to
uphold 70 percent (41) of the 59 death sentences he has
reviewed, while voting to reverse the other 18, including 10
that were unanimously reversed and three in which he was the
only dissenter. That's a bit below the 75 percent to 81
percent averages of the five current Missouri Supreme Court
judges whom Ashcroft himself appointed when he was Governor,
according to numbers compiled by the Missouri Democratic
Party. It's well above the 53 percent average of Elwood
Thomas, the now-deceased Ashcroft appointee whom White
replaced in 1995.
As for race, the raw fact is that the Senate's rejection of
the 46-year-old White--the first black person ever to sit on
the Missouri Supreme Court--was its first floor vote against
any judicial nominee since 1987, when the Senate spurned
Robert H. Bork for the U.S. Supreme Court. But Democrats are
quick to cite statistics showing that the Senate has
confirmed a substantially smaller percentage of Clinton's
minority judicial nominees than of his white nominees--while
taking longer to bring their nominations to a vote. Some
Republicans claim that a higher percentage of Clinton's
minority nominees are liberal activists. Perhaps that's true.
But does Ronnie White fit that bill?
Consider White's two lone death-penalty dissents
specifically criticized by Ashcroft. One involved a rape-
murder for which one

[[Page S958]]

Brian Kinder was sentenced to die. Judge White's ``only
basis'' for voting to give Kinder a new trial, Ashcroft told
his colleagues, was that Earl R. Blackwell, the trial judge,
had said he was ``opposed to affirmative action.''
This was a cynical distortion. In fact, White's dissent
stated that Judge Black-well's criticism of affirmative
action--which came in a campaign press release explaining his
decision to leave the Democratic Party--was ``irrelevant to
the issue of bias.'' What was ``indefensibly racist,'' he
continued, was the following assertion in Blackwell's press
release:
``While minorities need to be represented or [sic] course,
I believe the time has come for us to place much more
emphasis and concern on the hard-working taxpayers in this
country.''
As White wrote, this ``pernicious racial stereotype * * *
is not ambiguous or complex (nor, unfortunately, original).''
It means ``that minorities are not hard-working taxpayers.''
And for Judge Blackwell to issue such a statement--six days
before he was to begin the trial of a black man facing the
death penalty--``created a reasonable suspicion that he could
not preside over the case impartially.''
Judge White was right. And his eloquent dissent was both
more candid and more consistent with his court's own
precedents than was the majority opinion.
Ashcroft also assailed White's dissent from a 1998 decision
upholding the murder convictions and death sentence of
one James Johnson. In an appalling succession of shootings
growing out of a domestic dispute at Johnson's home, the
previously law abiding Vietnam veteran had stalked and
killed a sheriff, two deputies, and the wife of another
sheriff. His only defense was insanity.
``If Mr. Johnson was in control of his faculties when he
went on this murderous rampage, then he assuredly deserves
the death sentence he was given,'' Judge White wrote. But a
blunder by Johnson's defense lawyer, White added, had so
``utterly destroyed the credibility'' of his insanity defense
as to deny him a fair trial.
In his opening statement, the defense lawyer had focused on
a story that Johnson--who claimed to have no memory of what
he had done--had strung a ``perimeter'' of rope and cans
around his garage under the delusion that he was ``back in
Vietnam,'' in combat. This scenario was soon exposed as
fiction: The prosecution revealed with a flourish that the
``perimeter'' had been the work of police staking out
Johnson's home after the killings.
The majority and Judge White alike faulted both the defense
lawyer (for inadequate investigation) and the state (for
leaving him with a false impression of the facts). They
differed on whether there was a ``reasonable probability''
that, but for these unprofessional lapses, the jury might
have upheld the insanity defense. The majority said no; Judge
White--noting that Johnson's homicidal conduct suggested at
least ``something akin to madness''--said yes.
I'm not sure whether he was right. But it surely was a case
on which reasonable judges could disagree.
And in another such case, in 1996, it was Judge White who
wrote the court's decision upholding a brutal killer's death
sentence--and it was an Ashcroft appointee, then Chief Judge
John C. Holstein, who dissented. The cornerstone of any
civilized system of justice,'' Holstein wrote then, ``is that
the rules are applied evenly to everyone, no matter how
despicable the crime.''
That does not seem to be the view of many Senate
Republicans now. Their treatment of Ronnie White suggests
that they prefer judges to rubber-stamp the decisions of
trial judges, prosecutors, and police.
Sen. Ashcroft also stressed criticism of White's record by
police groups, including 77 of Missouri's 114 sheriffs. This
may help explain why the state's other Republican Senator,
Christopher S. Bond, joined Ashcroft in opposing Judge White
on the floor--after having introduced him to the Judiciary
Committee last year as ``a man of the highest integrity and
honor,'' with the ``qualifications and character traits'' to
be a federal judge.
But it turns out that Ashcroft himself orchestrated some of
the police opposition. He faces a tough re-election battle
next year and seems to be running as Mr. Death Penalty
against the man who appointed Judge White--Democratic Gov.
Mel Carnahan. (Carnahan also supports the death penalty.)
Ashcroft urged at least two police groups to oppose White,
according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Carl Wolf,
president of the Missouri Police Chiefs Association, told the
newspaper that Ashcroft's office had called to solicit his
opposition. Wolf declined because his group does not comment
on judicial nominations. Besides, he said: ``I really have a
hard time seeing that [White's] against law enforcement. I've
always known him to be an upright, fine individual.''
In short, the record shows that Judge White takes seriously
his duty both to enforce the death penalty and to ensure that
defendants get fair trials. It suggests neither that he's
``pro-criminal'' nor that he's a liberal activist. What it
does suggest is courage.
And while White may be more sensitive to civil liberties
than his Ashcroft appointed colleagues are, his opinions also
exude a spirit of moderation, care, and candor.
Would the Republicans who voted against Ronnie White--most
of them in deference to Ashcroft and Bond--have treated an
otherwise identical white nominee any better?
I doubt it. But by giving such transparently bogus reasons
for trashing a nominee who happens to be black--at a time
when statistics have already raised troubling questions about
the Senate's handling of minority nominees--Republicans
provoked suspicious not only among those who are profligate
in flinging charges of racism, but also among many fair-
minded people.
And those who claimed to have been ignorant of White's race
compounded insensitivity with obtuseness. Even if true, this
shows that they went into the first floor vote in 12 years to
reject a judicial nominee without listening to what their
Democratic colleagues were saying or learning anything about
the nominee's admirable life story.
In an era of politicized law, as I wrote recently, the best
antidote for partisan gridlock over judicial nominees is for
Presidents to shun ideological crusaders and choose moderate
centrists. That's what President Clinton did here. And that's
why--race aside--the Senate's vote and the smearing of Judge
White were shameful acts of pettiness and partisanship.
____

[From the Washington Post, Oct. 13, 1999]

Judge White's Judges

(By Benjamin Wittes)

Anyone who believes that race played no role in the
Senate's rejection last week of the judicial nomination of
Ronnie White should read the case of Missouri v. Kinder. Sen.
John Ashcroft, the Missouri Republican who led the fight to
kill White's nomination to a federal district court vacancy
in his state, cited Kinder on the Senate floor as one of
three cases that showed not merely White's hostility to the
death penalty but his ``tremendous bent toward criminal
activity.''
Ashcroft described White--the first African American to
serve on Missouri's Supreme Court--as willing to grant a new
trial to a clearly guilty rapist and murderer who had been
sentenced to death, because ``the trial judge had indicated
that he opposed affirmative action and had switched parties
based on that.'' This charge, if true, would indeed be
evidence that White had placed politics before the law. But
it is a gross distortion. The reality is that by using
White's well-reasoned dissent in Kinder as a cudgel against
him, Ashcroft provided as clear an example of racial politics
infecting the nomination process as one could ever hope to
see.
Brian Kinder was tried in the court of an elected judge
named Earl R. Blackwell, At the time of the trial, Blackwell
was facing a reelection campaign. Six days before Kinder's
trial was to begin, Blackwell announced in a press release
that he was switching parties because he found ``repugnant''
the Democratic Party's ``reverse-discriminatory quotas and
affirmative action.''
The politics of the statement were not the problem. The
problem was its all-but-overt racism: ``The truth is that I
have noticed in recent years that the Democrat party places
far too much emphasis on representing minorities such as
homosexuals, people who don't want to work, and people with a
skin that's any color but white. . . . While minorities need
to be represented, of course, I believe the time has come for
us to place much more emphasis and concern on the hard-
working taxpayers in this country.''
Faced with a judge who had just gone on the record
contrasting minorities with hard-working taxpayers, Kinder--
an unemployed black man--asked Blackwell to recuse himself.
The judge refused, saying he did not discriminate whether
individuals ``are yellow, red, white, black or polka dot.''
Kinder, after his conviction, appealed, arguing that the
trial was invalid because recusal should have been mandatory.
The surprising thing about this case is not that Ronnie
White voted to reverse the conviction but that he was the
only member of the Missouri Supreme Court--several of whose
judges were appointed by Ashcroft when he was the state's
governor--to stand up for the principle that a minority
defendant is entitled to a trial before a judge who does not
make public slurs against minority groups. Like Ashcroft, the
court majority pretended Blackwell was merely making a
political statement against affirmative action and concluded
merely making a political statement against affirmative
action and concluded that ``we do not agree that the
statements in the press release . . . would cause a
reasonable person to question the impartiality of the
court.''
White, in an opinion characterized by admirable restraint,
cut through this nonsense. ``No honest reading of
[Blackwell's statement] can show that it says anything other
than what it says: that minorities are not hard-working
taxpayers,'' he wrote. ``I doubt that any reasonable person
would think that a judge who makes provocative comments in a
campaign press release . . . would be able to scrupulously
set aside those views just because the judge dons a robe.''
Because of this appearance problem, he argued, recusal was
required. And ``since the judge here failed to sustain the
motion that he recuse himself, Mr. Kinder must receive a new
trial before a judge whose impartiality is beyond reproach.''
As a general matter, the White House and its allies
overstate the claim that minority and women nominees are
discriminated against in the confirmation process. Having
looked at many nominations, I am convinced that white men
with histories and records similar to those of the women and
minority

[[Page S959]]

nominees who get bogged down in the Senate would also have
problems. And race, to be sure, was not the predominant
factor in White's rejection, either. The politics of the
death penalty and the 2000 Missouri Senate race have that
dishonor.
But if White was not rejected because he's black, it is
also impossible to read racial politics out of his rejection.
Consider what would have happened had White and Kinder both
been Jewish and had Kinder been tried before a judge who had
issued a press release denouncing the political parties'
support for Israel that included analogous language: ``While
Jews need to be represented, of course, I believe the time
has come for us to place much more emphasis and concern on
moral people who are not obsessed with money.''
No senator would dare argue that an appeals court judge who
insisted that such overt hostility to Jews compelled a new
trial--even for a guilty defendant--should be kept off the
federal bench for having done so. To argue that the Kinder
case is reason to keep Ronnie White off the bench is no less
outrageous--just a little more socially acceptable.

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Indiana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. BAYH. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I convey my thanks and
gratitude to my colleague from Vermont for his extraordinary leadership
on this matter of utmost public importance. He has written another
honorable chapter in the history of this body, and I am privileged to
serve with him, as was my father privileged to serve before me.
I rise today as someone who was invited to Austin, TX, several weeks
before the new year to discuss with our new President the cause of
bipartisanship when it comes to improving the quality of our public
schools.
I rise as someone who was in the White House several nights ago to
discuss with the President bipartisanship when it comes to improving
the quality of health care.
I rise as someone who wants to work with this President to enact a
fiscally responsible tax cut.
I rise as someone who shares his conviction that faith-based
organizations have much to contribute to the welfare and well-being of
our country.
I rise as someone who deplores the gridlock in recent years and
politics of personal destruction and yearns to return to bipartisanship
and principled compromise for the sake of the United States of America.
Because of all these things and all we can accomplish together, I
also rise to express my opposition to the President's nomination of
John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General of the United States of
America.
Let me say at the beginning I do not believe in pointing fingers or
calling names. Some of the things that have been said about Mr.
Ashcroft, such as he is a racist, are, frankly, not true, and unfair,
and for that I have deep regret. We need more civility in this town.
Frankly, I wished Mr. Ashcroft himself practiced more civility when he
had the privilege of gracing this Chamber. But he is the wrong man for
this job.
He is the wrong man for several reasons: First, the unique character
of the Justice Department. Mr. Ashcroft has said he will enforce the
law, and I am sure that is true, but it begs the central question: What
does Mr. Ashcroft consider the law to be? The law is not carved in
stone and not subject to difference of opinion or dispute. Very able
lawyers can have heated differences of opinion about what the law
means, and in the Justice Department each and every day, hundreds of
decisions, or thousands of decisions, will be made--some of which the
public will never be aware--about which there are varying
interpretations of the law. What will happen in those cases? It will be
Mr. Ashcroft's interpretation; it will be Mr. Ashcroft's discretion; it
will be Mr. Ashcroft's law that will be put into effect for the
American people.
I have no doubt whatsoever that he will bring some of his more
strident views to bear on that office in ways that will cause great
conflict and controversy for this President and the people of our
country.
I think about the Supreme Court. We are not dealing with a Supreme
Court nominee here, but before my colleagues cast their vote, I ask how
they would vote if Mr. Ashcroft had been nominated for the Supreme
Court of the United States because, in many ways, the Attorney General
has as much or more discretion as does a member of the U.S. Supreme
Court. At least before a decision of the Supreme Court is handed down,
a Justice must get four of his or her colleagues to agree. Very often,
the Attorney General of the United States can make unilateral decisions
and interpretations of the law.

At least the Supreme Court is bound to some degree by precedent. The
Attorney General very often addresses entirely new areas of the law for
which there is no precedent, giving more discretion and more free rein
to the views and ideology of that individual. In Mr. Ashcroft's case, I
believe that will not serve our country well.
I have been troubled by some of his behavior, and it has been
outlined in the hearings Senator Leahy and my colleague, Chuck Schumer,
who just left, so ably outlined in the Judiciary Committee, but I want
to particularly mention the issue of Ronnie White.
I disagree with those who say Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to Judge
White was racially based. I do not believe that to be true. I believe
it was based upon prior political disagreements when Judge White served
in the State legislature--but, frankly, when it comes to the Attorney
General of the United States engaging in political payback, it is very
troubling--and it was based also upon Mr. Ashcroft's desire to be
reelected to this body, and the fact that he was willing to
misinterpret the record of Judge White for his own political personal
gain should concern us all. Not that political payback or sometimes
interpreting or misinterpreting one's record is unique even to this
Chamber and other political candidates across the country--it happens
all the time--but it should not happen in the Justice Department of the
United States, and it is not a characteristic we look for in the
Attorney General of the United States of America.
I was watching these proceedings last evening, and I will not name
names, but I heard a speech of one of our colleagues who expressed his
belief that behind opposition to Mr. Ashcroft was, in fact, an
opposition to those who are devoutly Christian in their beliefs serving
in positions of high public office. I say as one Senator, nothing could
be further from the truth. On the contrary. I have a deep respect for
Mr. Ashcroft's religious convictions. I think he should wear them as a
badge of honor. His devout faith is something we can all look to as a
source of pride on his part.
It is his secular views and what implementation of those views would
mean for the American people with more polarization, more divisiveness,
and, as a result, more gridlock, that troubles me. It has nothing to do
with his religious views, just as those of John Kennedy, Joe Lieberman,
and others had absolutely nothing to do with their fitness for public
service.
We need to state unequivocally on the record his religious
convictions have nothing to do with the reservations that at least this
Senator--and I believe the majority of my colleagues who stand in
opposition--has expressed.
Finally, it is quite clear that before long, Mr. Ashcroft will become
the next Attorney General of the United States of America. He can take
one of two lessons from the proceedings of these last several weeks. On
the one hand, he can draw from these proceedings the conclusion that he
should pay no attention to his critics; that there was no basis to any
of the objections raised to his nomination; that he needs no reason
whatsoever to reach out to those who have expressed their concerns; and
he can operate as Attorney General as he will.
On the other hand, he can decide to take the criticism not personally
but seriously. He can decide to reach out to those who have raised
objections to his nomination. He can reach out to those who have grave
concerns about how he conducts himself in the very important position
of Attorney General of the United States. He can dedicate himself to
proving those who raised objections to his nomination were, in fact, in
error and those objections were ill-founded.
It is that course of action that I hope he will take because in the
final analysis, any Attorney General of the United States of America
must dedicate himself to ensuring that our country lives out the full
meaning of our

[[Page S960]]

creed: Liberty and justice for all Americans--all--regardless of
ideology, race, creed, or orientation.
I hope it is that America to which Mr. Ashcroft will dedicate himself
as the next Attorney General of the United States of America and prove
that the concerns that have been expressed on the floor of this body
were, in fact, misplaced.
Mr. President, I appreciate the honor of addressing my colleagues
once again. I yield the floor to my colleague from Vermont.
Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Is somebody controlling time on our side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont actually has the time
until 12:15.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, seeing my friend from New Mexico, I
certainly yield to him.
Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I am going to vote for John Ashcroft to
be Attorney General of the United States. Let me first say, if you read
what he has done in his life, he is eminently qualified. For those who
are wondering whether the President of the United States has picked a
person who can, in fact, be a real Attorney General for the United
States, they can have no doubt about it. He graduated from the
University of Chicago Law School, which is a very reputable university.
In fact, it is one you do not get into unless they already know you are
very bright. That means, if you look at that, he was trained to be a
good lawyer.
Frankly, we have had a lot of Attorneys General of the United States
who were not good lawyers. There is no question he is trained and has
proven that he is not simply good but very good at matters that pertain
to law.
Secondly, as a Senator from one of the sovereign States, I feel very
concerned about the way this man is being treated and why the votes are
being garnered against him because if I were from the State of Missouri
instead of the State of New Mexico--and maybe I will transplant myself
there just for the next 3 or 4 minutes--I would ask, what kind of
people live in Missouri? I think I would conclude that, as you look
across America, they are very good people, very diverse. They earn a
living in very different ways, from agriculture to manufacturing. And
guess what. They elected this man who has been under fire day after
day, they elected him to be attorney general of their State two times.
They elected him to be Governor twice. Then they elected him to be a
Senator.

Frankly, does anybody really believe the people of Missouri would
elect a person who would discriminate against people in the State of
the population that has been discussed here? Do they think the citizens
of the State of Missouri would elect more than once a man to be
attorney general of their entire State, for all of their people, and
that they have all been beguiled and fooled because he really was not a
good attorney general; that he was prejudiced; that he was
discriminatory against people; that he did not follow the law? That is
pure bunk because he followed the law; he enforced the law. They
elected him Governor twice.
For this Senate to spend this much time trying to find little things
about this man that are almost the kind of things you would not even
ask anybody about--I looked at some of the questions Senators asked
this man, and they are not only petty in some respects, but they
deserve an answer, a simple answer: I don't remember. I can't
understand. It's too long ago.
They asked him questions about conversations 15 years ago with
reference to one of the subject matters: Did you talk to so-and-so?
Well, I do not remember.
I am a reasonably good Senator, and I can tell you right now, I
really remember things when I was 9, and 10, and 12, but I don't
remember too well things that happened 2 years ago. And I bet you there
are a lot of Senators like that. I will bet you there are a lot of
great attorneys general in the United States like that.
In fact, John Ashcroft enforced laws in his State as attorney general
that were inconsistent with his beliefs. And you know what. Attorneys
general across America are doing that all the time. They are elected by
the people. The people know they differ in many respects. They go in,
and what do they do? They follow the law. He is going to follow the
law.
The one difference versus many other Attorneys General, is that he is
a real lawyer. He will be a real Attorney General. He will run that
place because he has the intellectual capacity, the organizational
ability, and the desire to be a great Attorney General.
My friend and former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, is fully
qualified to serve as the next Attorney General of the United States,
and I will vote to confirm his nomination.
I served in this body with Senator Ashcroft for 6 years, and I know
him as a man of great honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, honesty and
integrity are often characteristics worthy of only secondary praise in
today's society. Nevertheless, it is vitally important that the public
has confidence that our Attorney General, who enforces our laws, is
possessed of these traits.
Of honesty, George Washington once remarked, ``I hope I shall always
possess firmness of virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most
enviable of all titles, the character of an Honest Man.'' It is my
belief that Senator Ashcroft possesses such character and is worthy of
the title.
Senator Ashcroft graduated from Yale University and the University of
Chicago Law School. He practiced law in his State of Missouri, and then
served as Missouri's attorney general from 1976-1985. He was twice
Missouri's Governor. He was later elected to the U.S. Senate, where he
served with distinction on the Judiciary Committee.
Throughout his career, he has had an impressive record on crime.
During his tenure as Governor, he increased funding for local law
enforcement, which resulted in a significant increase in full-time law
enforcement officers.
He helped enact tougher standards and sentencing for gun crimes, and
led the fight against illegal drugs. His tough stance on drugs is
important to me because we are seeking to eradicate a growing heroin
problem in northern New Mexico.
While Governor, total State and Federal spending for antidrug efforts
in Missouri increased nearly 400 percent. In the Senate, he cosponsored
the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996.
Despite his impressive credentials and proven record, Senator
Ashcroft's opponents suggest that his religious and ideological beliefs
will prevent him from enforcing our Nation's laws. It is true that he
is a religious man with strong convictions. It is untrue that this will
prevent him from carrying out his duties.
Time and time again throughout his distinguished career, this nominee
has enforced laws that run counter to his personal views. While serving
as Missouri's attorney general, a Christian group that Senator Ashcroft
favored was distributing Bibles on school grounds. After careful
review, he issued an opinion stating that such activity violated the
State constitution.
On another matter, even though Senator Ashcroft is pro-life, he has
unequivocally stated that he will investigate and prosecute any conduct
by pro-life supporters at abortion clinics that violates the law. His
prior actions support this assertion.
He once asked pro-life marchers to sign a nonviolence pledge and to
observe ordinary rules of courtesy with both ``friend and foe.'' It was
concern about potential violence at clinics that led to his vote for
Senator Schumer's amendment to the bankruptcy bill that made debts
incurred as a result of abortion clinic violence non-dischargeable in
bankruptcy.
Other critics contend that this nominee is insensitive to minorities.
His record on the whole indicates otherwise.
This is a charge I take very seriously because my state of New Mexico
has a large population of Native Americans and Hispanics. I am deeply
concerned about the interests of these and other minority groups
throughout the nation, and I have always worked to ensure that minority
rights are protected. In fact, I have supported affirmative action
programs in nearly every federal agency. I will hold this nominee's
feet to the fire on minority issues.

[[Page S961]]

As Governor, Senator Ashcroft enacted Missouri's first hate crimes
bill. He was also one of the nation's first governors to sign into law
the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. In addition, he appointed numerous
African Americans to the state bench, including the first African
American ever selected associate circuit judge in St. Louis County.
After this appointment, the Mound City Bar Association of St. Louis--
one of the oldest African-American Bar Associations in the United
States--said of then-Governor Ashcroft:

Your appointment of attorney Hemphill demonstrated your
sensitivity, not only to professional qualifications, but
also to the genuine need to have a bench that is as diverse
as the population it serves. . . . The appointment you have
just made and your track record for appointing women and
minorities are certainly positive indicators of your
progressive sense of fairness and equity. We commend you.

This is not the description of a man who is insensitive to the needs
of minorities.
Senator Ashcroft's concern for minorities did not stop when he came
to the U.S. Senate. As a matter of fact, while in the United States
Senate, he and Senator Feingold convened the first Senate hearing on
racial profiling, a practice Senator Ashcroft described as
unconstitutional. He testified during his recent confirmation hearings
that if confirmed he would make the elimination of racial profiling a
priority.
Senator Ashcroft supported 26 of 27 African-American judges who were
nominated to the federal judiciary. However, he did not support
Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White. Nor did a majority of the
U.S. Senate, 77 Missouri sheriffs, the National Sheriffs' Association,
and other law enforcement groups. Senator Ashcroft's opposition to
Judge White was based on a review of Judge White's dissenting opinions
in death penalty cases.
In my view, a person with honesty and integrity who has a strong law
enforcement record and a demonstrated willingness to follow the law
regardless of personal beliefs is exactly the type of individual that
should lead the Justice Department. That's the Senator Ashcroft I know,
and he will serve with distinction as Attorney General. He has my full
support. Thank you, Mr. President.
Mr. President, I am very pleased, and I congratulate the leadership
here on our side and on their side for finally deciding we would vote
today, not too long from now. I am hoping John Ashcroft will be
confirmed. I do not know what this magical number of whether the
Democrats can get 40 or 41 is all about, but I surely would not like to
be a Senator on the other side who is told: We need your vote so we can
get 41 votes against this man. What does that mean? Is that some reason
to vote against this candidate? To me, if I were on that side and
somebody told me: We only have 39 against him; we need you to make 40,
and then told somebody else 41, I would say: Don't you think I ought to
decide whether I want to vote for him? What does this 49, 40, or 41
mean? I don't understand it, except some think it means that is
strength.
Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point?
Mr. DOMENICI. I am finished. I will yield the floor.
It is strength, meaning you can defeat the next person President Bush
sends up to be a Supreme Court judge. What is that about? Nobody knows
who he is going send, what his philosophy is going to be. Pure
speculation. Pure speculation. And they are asking Senators to vote so
they can have that kind of message to those who are worried about
candidates who are conservative like this man? I don't really think it
matters too much if it is 39, 38, 40, or 41; he is going to be Attorney
General.
I tell you, I really predict he will be a good one, a very good one.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize we are on the time of the
distinguished Senator from Utah, but I wonder if I might take 30
seconds to respond to what my friend from New Mexico said.
Mr. HATCH. Of course.
Mr. LEAHY. One, I commend both sides for the way they have managed
this. But I tell my friend from New Mexico, this Senator has not asked,
urged, or cajoled any Senator to vote one way or the other. I have not
lobbied one single Senator in this body or told them how I expect them
to vote.
The only time I have heard--I tell the Senator from New Mexico, if I
could have his attention----
Mr. DOMENICI. Sure.
Mr. LEAHY. The only time I have heard numbers expressed was from the
Republican leadership, when they stated before the hearings began--
before 1 minute of hearings was held--that all 50 Republican Senators
were expected to, and would, vote for Senator Ashcroft, and, of course,
plus Vice President Cheney, which would make a majority.
I do also appreciate him saying that we now come to the vote. I point
out this matter has come to a vote much quicker than the last contested
Attorney General, which was in President Reagan's term, with a
Republican-controlled Senate, where they took about 10 months to bring
it to a vote. The nomination papers arrived Monday, we voted in the
committee on Tuesday, and we are going to have a final vote on
Thursday.
Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are at the end of this particular
debate. We are rapidly coming up to the time where we are all going to
have to vote.
It would be an understatement for me to say I have been disappointed
in a number of our colleagues and the approaches they have taken
towards this particular nominee.
There has not been a person in the Senate who has not admitted that
John Ashcroft is a person of integrity, decency, and honesty. He is a
very religious man who believes in what he is doing.
I believe some of the arguments that have been made have been pretty
bad. They have distorted his record. Mischaracterizations have been
throughout this matter. It has been really hard for me to sit here and
listen to some of the arguments that have been made.
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.
In response to a question I posed to Senator Ashcroft about the wide
disparity of treatment accorded him as a person of faith and that
accorded to Senator Lieberman when he was running for Vice-President,
and whether anything in his religious beliefs would interfere with his
ability to apply the law as critics had charged, Senator Ashcroft said:

In examining my understanding and my commitment and my
faith heritage, I'd have to say that my faith heritage
compels me to enforce the law and abide by the law rather
than to violate the law. And if in some measure somehow I
were to encounter a situation where the two came into
conflict so that I could not respond to this faith heritage
which requires me to enforce the law, then I would have to
resign.

If anyone is looking for reassurances about whether Senator Ashcroft
will enforce the law as written, I do not think anyone would have to
look farther than this brief paragraph. Senator Ashcroft's critics and
supporters uniformly agree that Senator Ashcroft is a man who takes his
faith seriously. And if he says his faith compels him to abide by the
law rather than violate it, I think his promise carries some weight. As
he said in his opening statement, he takes his oath of office
seriously, it being an oath taken enlisting the help and witness of God
in so doing.
Nevertheless, he 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. His critics cannot have it both ways. They
seek to impose either a caricature of strong faith--a faith defined by
them--followed with zealous determination in violation of law, or of
one who flouts his faith convictions by lying about his principles to
get through the confirmation process. Which is it? Apparently, his
critics do not understand either a faith that transcends politics and

[[Page S962]]

power-grabs or the distinction between being an advocate for change in
the law and being an impartial magistrate applying the law. This is not
surprising, given the proclivity of many of his critics for a largely
lawless, results-oriented, politicized approach to law, whether at the
Justice Department, in the Courts, or elsewhere.
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.
Strangely, though many have commented on these issues, some claim the
inability to see any such religious attack on Senator Ashcroft and the
large number of Americans who believe much of what he does. Following
my question to Senator Ashcroft, Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee, engaged in the following exchange with Senator
Ashcroft:

Mr. Leahy. I just would not want to leave one of the
questions from my friend from Utah to give the wrong
impression to the people here and just, sort of, make it very
clear. Have you heard any senator, Republican or Democrat,
suggest that there should be a religious test on your
confirmation?
Mr. Ashcroft. No senator has said, ``I will test you,'' but
a number of senators have said, ``Will your religion keep you
from being able to perform your duties in office?''
Mr. Leahy. I'm amazed at that.

I have been amazed too, and I am not alone. I ask unanimous consent
to have a sampling of editorials that have pointed out the religious
test element in these attacks printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 19, 2001]

Ashes to Ashcroft

(By James W. Skillen)

Do deeply held religious convictions pose a threat to
government? May we trust a man like John Ashcroft, whose
outlook appears to be saturated by faith, to serve as U.S.
attorney general.
It may seem odd, at first, that such a question is asked at
all. Odd that sincere religious belief--at least when it
comes to holding public office--should be counted as a
liability, whereas agnosticism and atheism are presumed to
pose no problem whatsoever. But there is a logic to the
question--if indeed there is a reasonable concern that some
higher authority will interfere with the republic's human
ones.
But is there a reasonable concern? That depends. There are
religions, and then there are religions. Clearly a man whose
God calls for him to overthrow the American system of
government would disqualify himself for public office
immediately, as would a theocrat for whom clerical edicts
would trump federal and state laws.
But of course John Ashcroft is not this sort of man. He is,
rather, the kind of Christian whose belief wholeheartedly
supports democracy, the rule of law and religious freedom. To
put it starkly: He believes that his savior and lord, Jesus
Christ, approves of the American system of government.
But that won't save him from his critics, who cringe at
such a claim, since they don't think the name of Jesus should
be used in a political conversation. But this is a kind of
bigotry. We easily accept the idea that broad liberal
sentiments inspire public service and that secular,
humanitarian ideals are harmonious with American democracy.
Why not religious convictions too?
Of course, any truths that anyone holds dear--secular or
divinely ordained--must exist in the real world on the same
footing as others, under constitutional provisions that hold
for everyone. But there is nothing in Mr. Ashcroft's record
to suggest that he thinks otherwise.
So why do some people still find his religion so
threatening? The answer, I think, is almost philosophical. It
has been standard modern practice to speak of religion in
isolation, as something separate. Thus we hear of ``religion
and society'' or ``religion and politics.'' This manner of
speech has its roots in the European Enlightenment's
conviction that Christianity was a kind of residual entity
that would soon be made obsolete by the progress of science
and reason.
The U.S. was founded at a time when the Enlightenment was
beginning to win American converts. Thomas Jefferson
expressed the new moralism of the Enlightenment when, in a
letter to his nephew, Peter Carr (Aug. 10, 1787), he
encouraged him to read the Bible. If such reading, Jefferson
wrote to Carr, ``ends in a belief that there is no God, you
will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and
pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others
which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe
there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his
eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional
incitement.''
From this point of view, religion is judged by its
pragmatic usefulness--its power to inspire public virtue.
Whether God exists, whether faith can be felt to be
personally true, does not matter.
The problem with Mr. Ashcroft, in the eyes of those who
have been influenced more by the Enlightenment than by
Christianity, is that he reveres God as truly superior to
himself and, in a moral sense, to the republic. That is, he
takes religion too seriously for a modern man. He does not
treat it as either a utilitarian devise or a merely private
affair.
Of course, if Mr. Ashcroft's political convictions on, say,
abortion were the same as those who now fault him, his
critics would applaud his belief as an incitement to virtue.
But he holds views contrary to their own. How to explain his
unwillingness to join their moral majority? Disparage his
religion as something dangerous--something out of the
mainstream that belongs to a darker, or less ``enlightened,''
age.
And the best way to do this is to suggest, implausibly,
that Mr. Ashcroft is blinded by his faith, that it is so
illiberal that it renders him unable to honor his obligations
as a public official, to revere the Constitution, to obey the
law it is his job to enforce. But it is an absurd suggestion:
After all, George W. Bush will put his hand on the Bible
tomorrow as he takes the oath of office, just like other
presidents before him. Somehow, the republic will survive,
and perhaps even prosper.
____

[From the Washington Times, Jan. 17, 2001]

Ashcroft Under Fire

If John Ashcroft is to be known as an extremist because he
is a man of faith; if, as his former Senate colleague Charles
Schumer repeatedly intimates, he is deemed ill-equipped to
enforce the law--even incapable of knowing whether he is
enforcing the law--because of his ideological and
philosophical beliefs; if the man is to be labeled a racist
because, as a senator from Missouri, he opposed one black
judicial nominee while supporting 26; if all these wholly
spurious charges are allowed to stand in a disgraceful
attempt to, first, smear an honorable and supremely
distinguished man and then defeat his nomination for attorney
general, it would become clear that the American mainstream
is a sterile, even hostile environment.
To be sure, the Senate Judiciary Committee, under Sen.
Patrick Leahy's leadership this week, seems to be just such
an inhospitable place. Even before Mr. Ashcroft gave a jot of
testimony, answered any questions, explained a single point
of view or action, or even said howdy-do, the Senate
Democrats had bayonets affixed and were on the attack. In an
ill-mannered rant harkening back to that science-fictional,
if slanderously effective attack on Robert Bork's Supreme
Court nomination, Sen. Ted Kennedy depicted an Attorney
General Ashcroft as someone who would ``advance his personal
views in spite of the laws of the land''--the baseless,
indeed, fanciful implication being that Mr. Ashcroft would
serve as some kind of Cabinet-level desperado in the new Bush
administration. Of course, Mr. Kennedy, reprising his oft-
played role as Democratic heavy in the confirmation hearings
of Republican nominees, was just warming up.
Mr. Schumer, if more cordial, was hardly more temperate in
his opening remarks, injecting a note of condescension into
the hearings by wondering how such an ``impassioned and
zealous advocate'' as Mr. Ashcroft could, as attorney
general, ``just turn it off? That may be an impossible
task,'' said Mr. Schumer, implying that Mr. Ashcroft is
constitutionally--religiously?--incapable of enforcing the
law when it conflicts with his convictions.
One might have thought that Mr. Ashcroft had pricked most
of the grossly--and grotesquely--inflated charges against him
with his compelling opening testimony during which he
emphasized his commitment to enforcing the law as written for
all Americans, regardless of race, color or creed. Hardly
striking an orthodox conservative pose, Mr. Ashcroft spoke of
his commitment, not to a color-blind society, but rather to
diversity and integration. He elaborated on his record of
supporting minority appointments and nominees throughout his
career, and he spoke of his opposition to racial profiling.
On the incendiary issue of abortion, Mr. Ashcroft declared
that, consistent with previous Republican attorneys general,
he believed Roe vs. Wade to have been wrongly decided, but
affirmed his unwavering acceptance of the landmark cases
upholding abortion's legality.
So what's the liberals' problem? Does anyone still take
seriously the charges of racism--even after, say, the brother
of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers came out for Mr.
Ashcroft this week? Does anyone--even a Senate Democrat--
genuinely worry that Mr. Ashcroft would not enforce abortion
laws even after learning, for example, that he has supported
a ban on violence against abortion clinics? Mr. Ashcroft has
made it clear that, as attorney general, he would uphold the
Constitution and the laws of the nation. After eight years of
an increasingly degraded Justice Department, that would be--
may we say it?--the department's salvation.

[[Page S963]]

____
[From the New York Times, Jan. 17, 2001]

A Christian, a Citizen

(By Robert A. Sirico)

Grand Rapids, MI.--Some of the objections to the John
Ashcroft nomination for attorney general hint that the
problem with his conservative politics is that it is rooted
in his Christian faith.
It is true that Mr. Ashcroft has made it clear that he is
Christian and that his religious beliefs inform his judgment
of the world. But why shouldn't someone who holds this
particular belief be qualified to lead the Justice
Department?
We must remember our country's progressive tradition of
religious tolerance. In our nation's history, certain states
subjected public officeholders to certain religious tests.
For instance, in 1961, the Supreme Court struck down a
Maryland law that required public officials to swear to a
belief in the existence of God. Progressives fought valiantly
against these religious tests, and it would be a grave error
to promote a new religious test that would in effect block
committed Christians from public service.
And yet some understandable questions remain. From the time
of ancient Israel and the early church, believers have held
that there is a law higher than those issued and enforced by
government. Its source is transcendent and binds people's
souls in a way in which statutory law cannot. Indeed, the
idea of a natural law that transcends the political process
is a powerful argument against tyranny.
Every serious believer and every conscientious person in
public office must balance respect for law with the dictates
of conscience. Many have disagreed profoundly with certain
policies and wondered whether their religious commitments
permitted them to cooperate in enforcing those policies.
Surely, as attorney general, Mr. Ashcroft would also have
to struggle with this conundrum--particularly when it comes
to abortion, which he opposes. But it is perfectly within
Christian belief that one can participate in an essentially
just system that sometimes produces unwise laws that must be
enforced, as Mr. Ashcroft would do. That is at least as
principled a position as that of those Catholic politicians
who personally oppose abortion but vigorously support Roe v.
Wade.
George W. Bush's response to the attacks on Mr. Ashcroft
hints at the distinction between administering the law and
advocating legislation. He says that as attorney general, Mr.
Ashcroft will enforce, not interpret, the law, until such
time as Congress changes them. Presumably that also includes
the nation's laws on abortion.
The Bible, in Chapter 13 of Romans, tells Christians that
``the powers that be are ordained of God.'' That passage has
never been held to mean that every regime governs according
to God's will. But the phrase does imply that Christians face
no moral obligation to flee from public life merely because a
nation's laws do not always perfectly conform to the highest
moral standards.
We are a nation that holds firm to the conviction that a
person's religious commitments, or lack thereof, need not bar
him or her from public life. The Ashcroft nomination provides
an opportunity to reaffirm the best of this old liberal
virtue of tolerance.
____

[From the Washington Post, Jan. 19, 2001]

Disqualified by His Religion?

(By Charles Krauthammer)

A senator is nominated for high office. He's been reelected
many times statewide. He has served admirably as his state's
attorney general. He is devout, speaking openly and proudly
about his religious faith. He emphasizes the critical role of
religion in underpinning both morality and constitutional
self-government. He speaks passionately about how his
politics are shaped by his deeply held religious beliefs.
Now: If his name is Lieberman and he is Jewish, his
nomination evokes celebration. if his name is Ashcroft and he
is Christian, his nomination evokes a hue and cry about
``divisiveness'' and mobilizes a wall-to-wall liberal
coalition to defeat him.
Just two months ago I addressed a gathering of the Jewish
Theological Seminary arguing that the Lieberman candidacy--
the almost universal applause his nomination received, the
excitement he generated when he spoke of his religious
faith--had created a new consensus in America. Liberals has
long vilified the ``religious right'' for mixing faith and
politics and insisting that religion has a legitimate place
in the public square. No longer. The nomination of Lieberman
to the second highest office in the country by the country's
liberal political party would once and for all abolish the
last remaining significant religious prejudice in the
country--the notion that highly religious people are unfit
for high office because they confuse theology with politics
and recognize no boundary between church and state. After
Lieberman, liberals would simply be too embarrassed to return
to a double standard.
How wrong I was. The nomination of a passionate and devout
Christian for attorney general set off the old liberal anti-
religious reflexes as if Joe Lieberman had never existed.
Of course, the great anti-Ashcroft revolt is not framed as
religious. The pretense is that it is about issues. Hence
this exchange during John Ashcroft's confirmation hearing:
Sen. Patrick Leahy: ``Have you heard any senator,
Republican or Democrat, suggest that there should be a
religious test on your confirmation?''
John Ashcroft: ``No senator has said `I will test you.' But
a number of senators have said, `Will your religion keep you
from being able to perform your duties in office?' ''
Sen. Leahy: ``All right, well, I'm amazed at that.''
At the clumsiness, perhaps. No serious politician is
supposed to admit openly that Ashcroft's religion bothers
him. The religious test that is implied is not just un-
American, it is grossly unconstitutional.
The ostensible issues are abortion and racial preferences,
both of which Ashcroft fundamentally opposes. But are they
really? In a country so divided on these issues, can one
seriously argue that opposing abortion and racial preferences
is proof of extremism? It would be odd indeed if the minority
of Americans who believe in racial preferences and the
minority who believe in abortion-on-demand were to define the
American mainstream. In fact, under these issues lies a
suspicion, even a prejudice, about the fitness of a truly
religious conservative for high office. ``Christian Right''
is a double negative in the liberal lexicon. It is meant to
make decent Americans cringe at the thought of some religious
wing nut enforcing the laws. Torquemada at Agriculture
perhaps. But not Justice, God forbid.
To the anti-Ashcroft coalition, the Christian Right--
numbering at least 30 million, by the way--is some kind of
weird fringe group to whom bones are thrown by otherwise
responsible Republicans to induce them to return to their
caves. Politically, they are a foreign body to be ignored,
bought off or suppressed. Hence the charge that the very
appointment of a man representing this constituency is, in
and of itself, divisive.
Hence the salivation when news broke that there was a tape
of Ashcroft's commencement address at Bob Jones University.
In it, he declared that Jesus is a higher authority than
Caesar. That sent some fundamentalist church-state
separationists into apoplexy. This proved, said Barry Lynn,
the executive director of Americans United for Separation of
Church and State, that Ashcroft ``has little or no
appreciation for the constitutional separation of church and
state'' and thus is disqualified from serving as attorney
general.
What Ashcroft did was not merely to state the obvious--that
the American experiment has always recognized its source in
the transcendent--but to restate in his own vernacular what
Joe Lieberman had been saying up and down the country
throughout the summer and fall.
It was a great day when Joe Lieberman was nominated. and it
was even greater that he publicly rooted his most deeply held
political beliefs in his faith. It is rather ironic that we
now need to go through that same process for Ashcroft's
constituency of co-believers. When the Senate confirms him,
we will have overcome yet another obstacle in America's
steady march to religious toleration.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me point to just a few instances of
these amazing attacks on Senator Ashcroft, made on largely religious
grounds, since he was nominated. In fairness to my colleagues in the
Senate, they have tried to draw a distinction between the liberal
pressure groups' attacks on Senator Ashcroft's religious views and my
colleagues' questioning into his ``values'' or ``beliefs.'' But their
wholesale adoption of the rest of the liberal interest group critique
of John Ashcroft does suggest a connection between the objections,
despite a generally more guarded rhetoric. However, I was disappointed
that just this morning one of our colleagues was quoted in The New York
Times as saying, ``he believed Mr. Ashcroft's `fundamental beliefs and
values' would conflict with the attorney general's responsibility to
enforce the law.'' NY Times, Feb. 1, 2001.
Let me turn to 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.
Most attacks have been based on the divergence of his religious
beliefs and a particular law, such as abortion rights, or a suggestion
that the strength of his deeply-held convictions will make it
impossible for him to analyze the law dispassionately and apply it
even-handedly. Professor Dunn makes his attack explicitly on religious
grounds. On a personal note, I am deeply disappointed that a Divinity
Professor, who has worked on important religious liberty legislation
with me and other people of conscience and people of faith, would use
such harsh and intemperate language to attack a person of good faith,
apparently over a policy difference.
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

[[Page S964]]

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.
This critique is particularly odd when both major-party presidential
candidates have been talking up the concept of charitable choice very
recently in their campaigns.
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. I hope that none of my colleagues
would join in such attacks, whether explicitly stated or couched in
more careful language.
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 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
``his actions and statements over time with regard to choice and family
planning represent no mere commentary on policy decisions of the day,
but rather illustrate deeply held beliefs that put him at odds with the
overwhelming majority of Americans.'' She went on to argue 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.
Where all of this leads is down one of two roads. Either the
political views of about half of the country--including a duly elected
pro-life President--make one unfit for office, which clearly cannot be
right in a democracy. Or religious people who actually believe their
religions are unfit for public office, which clearly cannot be right in
a tolerant and pluralistic society founded in part on religious
freedom.
Or there is a third path. That path is the one John Ashcroft's
opponents have added most recently to counter his assurances that he
will follow the law, even where he disagrees with it. That path is to
try to brand as a liar a person who, while disagreeing on policy,
promises to honor the law as the policy-makers have made it. This path
attacks the very notion of dispassionate analysis and even-handed
application of the law.
Besides undermining our basic assumptions supporting the rule of law,
this position raises two additional objections. First, it unfairly puts
the nominee in a lose-lose position where he cannot ever win the
argument because if he disagrees with his opponents on policy he is
branded a dangerous extremist, but if he disarms the policy dispute by
acknowledging his role as enforcer of policy made by others, his
veracity is called into question. There seems to be no way to satisfy
these critics without violating the oath to uphold the law; they seem
to want a promise that he will make up new liberal law in his
enforcement position.
Besides being little more than a desperate attempt to justify
opposition under any circumstances, this path 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.
Oddly, to justify questions approaching this line, one Judiciary
Committee member suggested that is was perfectly appropriate to inquire
whether a Quaker could faithfully discharge the office of Secretary of
Defense. I am not sure we should be so blithely assured that it is
appropriate to inquire about a nominee's religious beliefs and then
judge that nominee based on what we think their religion requires of
them. That robs the individual conscience of its freedom and robs the
executive of the choice of cabinet team based on a Senator's own
projection of what a nominee's religious code ought to be. 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. 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

[[Page S965]]

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 him to be a
man of integrity, a man of his word. A man who reveres American
constitutionalism, democracy, pluralism, and equality before the law.
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 established by the constitutional
process he reveres.
I think if we examine our hearts, we will find nothing that
disqualifies him 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, sworn as he points out ``so help [him] God.''
And we know this 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.
My colleague Senator Kennedy suggests that to oppose court-ordered
busing makes a person against integration. But nothing could be farther
from the truth. I think most people highly abhor racial segregation.
However, the remedy for such segregation is extremely controversial.
Mr. Bob Woodson testified that a significant majority of African-
Americans opposes busing for integration. And it is no wonder, given
that many of these programs have been a dismal failure. They may have
moved some children out of city schools, but they have done little to
improve inner-city schools.
I would like to address several allegations that continue to be made
relating to Senator Ashcroft's involvement with school desegregation
cases in Missouri. 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 has referred 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 only by a 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 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 standard
achievement test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at a time when the national
mean was 50. And the graduation rate has remained at a dismal 30
percent.
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 a representative of the
State of Missouri. He supports integration and deplores racism.
As one who feels very strongly about drug issues, I am pleased to say
I have been working with Senator Leahy on legislation dealing with drug
treatment and prevention, and we are going to get that done this year.
I feel compelled to respond to some of the criticism launched at
Senator Ashcroft yesterday regarding his stance on drug treatment. Some
have questioned Senator Ashcroft's dedication to investing in drug
prevention and treatment programs in the battle against drug abuse and
addiction.
Indeed, yesterday when giving a statement in opposition to Senator
Ashcroft, one Senator suggested that Senator Ashcroft opposed investing
in drug treatment. That simply is not true. Senator Ashcroft's record
in the Senate proves that he placed a lot of faith in drug prevention
and treatment.
He has always believed, as do many of us, that America's drug
problems can only be conquered through a comprehensive, balanced
approach consisting of interdiction and law enforcement efforts as well
as prevention and treatment.
It is true that in 1998, Senator Ashcroft called on the Clinton
administration to continue the ban on federal funding for clean-needle
programs, stating ``the nation's leaders have a fundamental
responsibility to call Americans to their highest and best.'' Providing
clean needles to drug addicts, Senator Ashcroft reasoned, was analogous
to ``giving bullet proof vests to bank robbers.'' He argued that such a
policy would ``hurt kids, tear apart families, and damage the
culture.'' Senator Ashcroft went on to state that providing needles to
addicts ``is accommodating us at our lowest and least.'' In light of
the fact that heroin use among eighth graders had doubled and that
marijuana use was up 99 percent at the time when the Clinton
administration was considering lifting the ban on federal funding for
needle exchange programs, Senator Ashcroft concluded that ``America
deserve[d] better,'' and that its leaders needed to set ``a higher
standard than providing clean needles for drug users.''
Some have mischaracterized Senator Ashcroft's record on drug
treatment. I have complete confidence in saying that the majority of
Americans agree with Senator Ashcroft. Providing drug addicts with
clean needles is not the most effective drug prevention or treatment.
Just last session, Senator Ashcroft authored and introduced S. 486, a
comprehensive bill that attacked the methamphetamine problem on several
fronts, including the prevention and treatment fronts. S 486 was a
balanced drug bill that contained significant and innovative prevention
and treatment provisions. For example, the bill: (1) Expanded the
National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network which conducts
research and clinical trials with treatment centers relating to drug
abuse and addiction and other biomedical, behavioral and social issues
related to drug abuse and addiction; (2) authorized $10 million in
grants to States for treatment of methamphetamine and amphetamine
addiction; (3) authorized $15 million to fund grants to public and
nonprofit private entities to carry out school-based and community-
based programs concerning the dangers of abuse of and addiction to
methamphetamine and other illicit drugs; and (4) required HHS to
conduct a study on the development of medications for the treatment of
addiction to amphetamine and methamphetamine.
Another important treatment provision, included in S. 486, offered an
innovative approach to how drug addicted patients could seek and obtain
treatment by creating a decentralized system of treating heroin addicts
with a new generation of antiaddiction medications. This provision,
which was added to S. 486 and was fully supported by Senator Ashcroft,
was taken from a bill introduced by myself and Senators Levin and
Biden. I am sure Senator Levin would agree that Senator Ashcroft's
sponsorship and support for this very provision, not to mention the
countless other provisions included in the bill, demonstrate this
commitment to utilizing and funding effective prevention and treatment
programs in the fight against illicit drug abuse and addiction. Senator
Ashcroft's record

[[Page S966]]

proves he believes in prevention and treatment programs and his views
on one particular, and I must say controversial, form of a treatment
program.
There are so many things I could bring up that have been distortions,
misrepresentations, and downright falsehoods stated on this floor and
in our committee about Senator Ashcroft--especially by outside groups.
The sheer volume is mind-boggling to me.
I recall the Golden Rule of ``do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.''
I wonder how many people would like to be treated like Senator
Ashcroft has been treated by some of our colleagues here and some of
these outside groups, distorting his record, trying to make him look
bad--all in the good name of politics. I think it is wrong. Buddhists
say it another way. Buddhists say, ``Do as you would be done by.'' It
is very similar. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
How many of us would like to be treated like this? Here is a man who
was elected attorney general of his State, who did his best to do that
job, who enforced laws he didn't agree with. And he has a record that
can be shown. He was selected by his peers--the other 49 attorneys
general of the United States of America--to head the National Attorneys
General Association. And we have people here saying he should not be
Attorney General of the United States.
You don't get elected by 49 other state attorneys general--Democrats
and Republicans--unless you are a quality person. What is more, he
became Governor of the great State of Missouri for 8 years. As Governor
of the State of Missouri, he also became the head of the National
Governors' Association elected by the other 49 Governors. I submit that
you don't get elected chairman of the National Governors' Association
unless you are a quality individual, of great substance, fair
and decent, and you surely would not get elected if you were against
desegregation. There is no way.

Then he served 6 years in this Senate and I have never heard one
person in this body say that he is not a man of integrity, decency, and
honor.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
I have never seen treatment like this of a worthy colleague. I have
never seen treatment like this of somebody who has spent a lifetime
living his beliefs and doing what is right.
Of the 69 Attorneys General of the United States, John Ashcroft has
more qualifications than all but a handful; some say more
qualifications than any one who has been Attorneys General. I will not
go that far. But there is only a handful that have at least some of the
qualifications that John Ashcroft has.
Think of what Senator Ashcroft's critics are doing to the State of
Missouri in the arguments that have been made here. Why, you would all
have to imply that the people of Missouri just have no brains to elect
somebody as vicious, as violent, and as awful as John Ashcroft, when it
is completely the other way. I commend the people of Missouri for
having the brains to have somebody of that quality serve them as
attorney general, Governor, and Senator.
Look at the way he handled his defeat--with decency; much more than
has been shown to him--consideration, and kindness. And we are happy to
welcome our new colleague from Missouri because of John Ashcroft's
gracious concession and because she is a great person to boot. But
Senator Ashcroft could have contested the election. The loss of a
Senate race has to be personal. There are other legal aspects as well,
it could be argued. But he didn't. He did not do what others are doing
to him.
When I see these outside groups, I welcome them because it is the
first time we have seen them in 8 years. Isn't that interesting? They
seem to react and get into action only when there is a Republican
President. I wonder why that is the case.
I respect their right to advocate. I respect their point of view even
though I don't agree with many of them. I respect their right to come
in and state that point of view.
But I resent the way they have done it. I resent the way they have
picked on John Ashcroft. I resent the unfair tactics. I resent the
distortions of his record. Boy, it has been distorted. I think we all
resent it.
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Isn't it amazing that only during Republican Presidencies we have all
these groups coming out of the woodwork? I guess they can say it is
because Republicans don't agree with them.
That is what makes this country great. We don't all have to agree.
Let me put it bluntly. Is it getting to the point where only pro-
choice people can serve in as Attorney General of the United States? Do
we have a litmus test that says that we have to reject highly qualified
individuals who believe otherwise, but who will enforce the law as it
exists? Is that where we are going in this country? Or are we going to
continue to distort his record on guns? John Ashcroft has a sterling
record on getting tough with criminals who use guns. That is the way to
end the misuse of guns in this society--get tough on those who misuse
them. There would be a lot less crime. But no, if we don't agree with
certain anti-gun groups and we just ignore the history of the second
amendment completely, we are not worthy of being Attorney General.

To have his record distorted when he has been a forthright, strong
proponent of tough anticrime laws against those who misuse guns, it is
a disgrace.
Desegregation: Sometimes in the law we can differ and have a good
case and we might lose. But that doesn't mean the case wasn't good. If
you look at the record of court-ordered desegregation in St. Louis and
Kansas City, it didn't work. The people hurt the worst were the people
in the inner cities of St. Louis and Kansas City. It cost $1.8 billion,
which John thought was a raid on the State treasury. The State was
never found liable for interdistrict segregation. Those are important
points.
I want Members to think about it. Why would anybody in this body say
some of the things that have been said about John Ashcroft? Is it
because they want to make John Ashcroft the new Newt Gingrich so they
can raise funds for reelection? I certainly hope not. But there are
some who believe that. I am not sure it is not true. Is it because they
are sending a message that no conservative who believes in the right to
life should ever be Attorney General? Or even more, should never be on
the circuit courts or supreme court of this land? Is that what we are
doing? I believe some are doing it for that reason. I know some of the
outside groups are doing it for that reason. I know they are trying to
get as many votes against John Ashcroft so they can claim a victory,
even though John Ashcroft is going to be the next Attorney General of
the United States. I guess they want to undermine him from day 1. They
got the wrong guy.
This is a fellow who will do what he thinks is right, and by and
large will be right. Everybody in this body admits he would be a great
law enforcement Attorney General.
The fact is, they know he is tough on crime. After all, that is one
of the things we are all worried about. People are scared to death in
this land today because we have allowed drugs to pervade the land. We
have allowed criminality to pervade the land. We haven't been as tough
as we should be. We have illicit use of guns in this land because we
are not enforcing the laws. Instead of going after those who misuse the
guns, they have been complaining about guns themselves. I would rather
attack the problem in a responsible and intelligent way. Let he who has
not sinned cast the first stone. Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.
I hope we don't have another nominee that goes through this, a person
of decency and honor. I hope whether he or she is a Democrat or
Republican, they will have a little more class than we have had
displayed in this matter. I hope my colleagues on the other side will
vote for John Ashcroft because it is the right thing to do. We should
never get into these name-calling contests and distort people's
records, especially someone of the quality of John Ashcroft, and a
colleague at that.
Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of President
Bush's nominee for Attorney General, our former colleague, John
Ashcroft. Senator Ashcroft will be one of the most qualified Attorney
Generals in our history. Unfortunately, he has also been

[[Page S967]]

the target of one of the most vicious and unrelenting smear campaigns
in our history, and it is with that in mind that I feel compelled to
set the record straight and describe at length, the real facts and the
real qualifications of someone I think this country will be very
fortunate to have serve as our Attorney General.
Mr. President, much of the debate over the nomination of John
Ashcroft has focused on issues tangential to the core mission of the
Department of Justice. The Senate would be well-served to consider the
Ashcroft nomination in light of the duties of the Attorney General.
When this debate is placed in the proper perspective, it becomes even
more obvious how qualified Senator Ashcroft is to be the next Attorney
General of the United States.
The Department of Justice was established by Congress in 1870. It is
the largest law firm in the United States, with 123,000 employees and
an annual budget of approximately $21 billion. Through its thousands of
lawyers, agents, and investigators, the Justice Department plays a
vital role in fighting violent crime and drug trafficking, ensuring
business competition in the marketplace, enforcing immigration and
naturalization laws, and protecting our environment. Consider the
following major components of the Justice Department in light of the
qualifications of Senator Ashcroft:
The Civil Rights Division was established in 1957 to secure the
effective enforcement of civil rights for all Americans. Attorneys in
the Civil Rights Division enforce federal statutes that prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, religion, and
national origin. In order to enforce these landmark laws, the Civil
Rights Division engages in a variety of litigation to fight
discrimination in employment, housing and immigration. In particular,
the litigation brought by the Civil Rights Division under the Voting
Rights Act has had a profound influence on the electoral landscape in
the last three decades. As Senator Ashcroft emphatically stated at his
confirmation hearing: ``No part of the Department of Justice is more
important than the Civil Rights Division.''
Senator Ashcroft's record proves that he believes in the mission of
the Civil Rights Division. He vigorously enforced civil rights laws as
the Attorney General and Governor of Missouri. He signed Missouri's
first hate crimes statute. Not content to wait for the legislature to
act, John Ashcroft made Missouri one of the first States to recognize
Martin Luther King Day by issuing an executive order. He also led the
fight to save Lincoln University, the Missouri university founded by
African-American Civil War veterans.
Furthermore, as the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the
Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft held the first hearing on
racial profiling in the history of Congress. When asked at his
confirmation hearing about his priorities for the Justice Department,
Senator Ashcroft cited the abolition of racial profiling as one of his
top two priorities.
I ask my colleagues to look to Senator Ashcroft's record and ignore
the propaganda generated by extremist lobbying groups. Under attorney
General Ashcroft, the Civil Rights Division will be in good hands.
Senator Ashcroft stated at his confirmation hearing that the
paramount civil right is personal safety. The Attorney General is
America's chief law enforcement officer, and managing the Criminal
Division is the most important aspect of the Attorney General's duties.
The Criminal Division oversees thousands of federal agents and is
charged with, among other things, investigating and prosecuting drug
dealers, illegal gun traffickers, bank robbers, child pornographers,
computer hackers, and terrorists. The Criminal Division has a visible
and tangible effect on the lives of all Americans.
I have no doubt that, given his extensive experience as a public
servant, Senator Ashcroft understands and appreciates the mission of
the Criminal Division. Throughout his long career as Missouri Attorney
General, Missouri Governor, and United States Senator, Senator Ashcroft
has been a strong advocate of tough and effective criminal law
enforcement.
Perhaps the greatest threat facing our nation today is the scourge of
illegal drugs. For years, Senator Ashcroft has been a leader in the
fight against illegal drugs. In 1996, Senator Ashcroft helped enact the
Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act, which increased penalties
for the manufacture and trafficking of methamphetamine. Senator
Ashcroft also helped enact federal laws that increased mandatory
minimum sentences for methamphetamine offenses and authorized courts to
order persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses to pay for the
costs of laboratory cleanup. Last year, Senator Ashcroft authored
legislation to target additional resources to local law enforcement
agencies to fight methamphetamine.
Senator Ashcroft also understands that drug treatment and prevention
are vital components of an effective drug strategy. In last year's
methamphetamine legislation, Senator Ashcroft included funding for drug
education and prevention programs, including resources for school-based
anti-methamphetamine initiatives. As Attorney General and Governor of
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft increased funding for anti-drug programs by
almost 40%, the vast majority of which was for education, prevention
and treatment.
Senator Ashcroft has also made clear that prosecuting gun crimes will
be a top priority of the Ashcroft Justice Department. Unfortunately,
gun prosecutions have not always been a priority for the Department of
Justice. 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. In the Senate, John
Ashcroft was one of the leaders in fighting gun crimes. To reverse 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.
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.
In order to maintain tough federal penalties, Senator Ashcroft
sponsored legislation to require a five-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. I have no doubt that with John Ashcroft as Attorney
General, the Justice Department will target and prosecute gun crimes
with unprecedented zeal.
To his credit, Senator Ashcroft understands that the vast majority of
criminal law enforcement takes place at the state and local level.
Given his tenure as Missouri Attorney General and Governor, Senator
Ashcroft appreciates the important role that the federal government can
play in supporting state and local authorities by providing resources
and training. He also understands that the Justice Department should
provide such support without intruding into traditional areas of state
sovereignty.
In the Senate, Senator Ashcroft steadfastly supported state and local
law enforcement. He won enactment of a bill that extends higher
education financial assistance to spouses and dependent children of law
enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. He was the principal
proponent of the ``Care for Police Survivors Act,'' a measure that
increases benefits to the survivors of public safety officers killed in
the line of duty. Along with Senator Biden, Senator Ashcroft co-
sponsored legislation to reauthorize the COPS program.

[[Page S968]]

In addition, Senator Ashcroft cosponsored the ``Local Law Enforcement
Enhancement Act of 1995.'' This act allocated $1 billion to state and
local law enforcement to update and computerize criminal records,
automated fingerprint systems, and DNA identification operations. John
Ashcroft also cosponsored the ``21st Century Justice Act'' which
included Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
Incentive Grants. These grants have provided federal resources to
States to build prisons to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders.
Given his record, it is no surprise that law enforcement groups such as
the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District
Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Police
Organizations are united in their support for Senator Ashcroft's
nomination.
The Civil Division represents the United States government, including
executive departments and agencies, in civil litigation. First and
foremost, the Civil Division defends the constitutionality of federal
statutes, regulations, and executive orders. The Civil Division also
litigates complex commercial cases. This litigation is especially
important for property rights because the Civil Division represents the
federal government against claims that private property was taken for
public use without just compensation. In addition, the Civil Division
represents the federal government in consumer litigation under various
consumer protection and public health statutes.

Senator Ashcroft's experience as the Attorney General of Missouri
prepared him well to oversee the Civil Division. John Ashcroft
established the Consumer Affairs Division in the Missouri Attorney
General's office. He brought many consumer protection actions,
including odometer tampering cases and financial pyramid schemes. In
Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed
a brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the right of
state attorneys general to conduct antitrust investigations. In the
Senate, John Ashcroft helped enact legislation to combat telemarketing
scams against senior citizens.
As Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft defended the
constitutionality of state laws. In 1993, he personally argued a case
before the United States Supreme Court in defense of the
constitutionality of a Missouri statute. Few nominees for Attorney
General have been so qualified to oversee the Civil Division.
Created in 1909, the Environment and Natural Resources Division is
the Nation's chief environmental lawyer. It is responsible for
litigating cases ranging from the protection of endangered species to
the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. In addition to prosecuting
environmental crimes, the Environment and Natural Resources Division
ensures that federal environmental laws are implemented in a fair and
consistent manner.
As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft aggressively enforced
that state's environmental protection laws. To cite but a few examples,
Attorney General Ashcroft brought suit to prevent an electric company
from causing oxygen levels in downstream waters to harm fish. He also
sought to recover damages from the electric company.
Attorney General Ashcroft brought a successful action against the
owner of an apartment complex for violations of the Missouri Clean
Water Law relating to treatment of waste water, and he sued the owner
of a trailer park for violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law.
As Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft also filed numerous
briefs in the United States Supreme Court that advanced environmental
protections. For example:
In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation
& Development Commission, Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief
supporting a California law that conditioned the construction of
nuclear power plants on findings that adequate storage and disposal
facilities are available.
In Sporhase v. Nebraska, Attorney General Ashcroft endorsed the State
of Nebraska's effort to stop defendants from transporting Nebraska
groundwater into Colorado without a permit.
In Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief supporting the Natural
Resources Defense Council's position on tougher environmental
regulations relating to storage of nuclear wastes.
As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft issued numerous legal
opinions that furthered the enforcement of environmental laws. I would
like to describe a few of these formal opinions. In Attorney General
Opinion No. 123-84, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that
underground injection wells constitute pollution of the waters of the
state and are subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of
Natural Resources under the state's Clean Water Act. Attorney General
Ashcroft also opined that it would be unlawful to build or operate such
a well unless a permit had been obtained from the Clean Water
Commission.
In Attorney General Opinion No. 67, Attorney General Ashcroft issued
an opinion that operators of surface mines must obtain a permit for
each year that the mine was un-reclaimed. In reaching this opinion,
Attorney General Ashcroft determined that the operator of the mine must
have a permit continuously from the time mining operations begin until
reclamation of the site is complete. Attorney General Ashcroft
concluded that the 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.''
In Attorney General Opinion No. 189, Attorney General Ashcroft issued
an opinion that Missouri's cities and counties had the authority to
require that all solid waste be disposed of at approved solid waste
recovery facilities, rather than be buried in landfills. In rendering
his opinion, Attorney General Ashcroft gave credence to 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.'' To those who have irresponsibly charged that Senator
Ashcroft will not enforce our environmental laws, I say this: Look at
his record.
Mr. President, there are other offices in the Justice Department that
are also very important. In the interest of time, however, I have
focused on a select few. My point today is a simple one--when this
nomination is considered in light of the mission of the Department of
Justice, it becomes apparent how well-qualified John Ashcroft is to be
Attorney General.
In addition to placing in the record Senator Ashcroft's eminent
qualifications, I would also like to correct the record surrounding a
number of issues that have been raised by his critics. As Senator
Sessions has said, Senator Ashcroft has been called ``divisive'', but
that has been a result of a caricature created by extremist lobbying
groups who have spared nothing to demonize him. Webster includes in its
definition of ``caricature'', ``a likeness or imitation that is that is
so distorted or inferior as to seem ludicrous.'' The portrait of John
Ashcroft that has been painted by the People For the American Way and
other like-motivated people and organizations is ludicrous. They
describe a man that I do not recognize as John Ashcroft. Unlike their
demonization, the real John Ashcroft has the character and the
intelligence to be a great Attorney General.
Before addressing some of the unfair attacks leveled against Senator
Ashcroft, I should say a word or two on standards. We have heard much
discussion about the appropriate standard of ``advise and consent''
that we should apply to the President's Cabinet nominees.
Unfortunately, many people, knowing that opposing Senator Ashcroft on
ideological grounds would be unprecedented, appear to be manipulating
this standard so as to mask their true reasons for opposing this
nomination. And those reasons, I must say, are purely ideological.
Prodded, and perhaps in some cases even threatened, by assorted left-
wing extremist groups, those on the other side appear to oppose Senator
Ashcroft simply because he is a conservative.
The standard we should use is that which was applied to Attorney
General

[[Page S969]]

Janet Reno in 1993, and that standard has three parts. First, by
longstanding tradition in the Senate, we must afford the President a
significant degree of deference to shape his Cabinet as he sees fit.
The election is over, President Bush won, and nothing will change that
fact. Some have suggested that because the election was close and
divisive, we should be less deferential with respect to Cabinet
nominees. Yet, I do not recall hearing that suggestion in 1993 after
President Clinton won an extremely close and hard-fought election, an
election in which he failed to garner a majority of the popular vote.
Despite that close election, every Republican in this body deferred to
President Clinton and voted for Attorney General Reno.
The second prong of our standard focuses on the experience and
qualifications of the nominee. No one can seriously contend that
Senator Ashcroft lacks the experience and qualifications to serve as
Attorney General. Indeed, few in our nation's history have come to the
post of Attorney General with the qualifications and experience that
Senator Ashcroft brings. In almost thirty years of public service, he
has served as a state attorney general, state governor, and United
States Senator. While Missouri Attorney General, he was elected by the
other state attorneys general to head the National Association of
Attorneys General, while Governor of Missouri, his fellow governors
elected him chairman of the National Governors' Association, and while
a United States Senator, he served four years on the Judiciary
Committee. By comparison, Attorney General Reno came to the post as a
county prosecutor. Yet, despite concerns about her qualifications,
every Republican in this body voted to confirm her.
The final prong of our standard requires us to ensure that the
nominee possesses the necessary integrity and ethics to serve the
American people. Here, Senator Ashcroft is above reproach. He is, by
all accounts, a man of absolute honesty and deep religious conviction.
I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that I knew
President Bush had found the right person to enforce the laws of this
nation when Senator Ashcroft raised his right hand and said, ``As a man
of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously. . . . when I swear
to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God.''
Mr. President, as the senior senator from Vermont succinctly stated,
albeit when the president was a member of his own party, ``The
president should get to pick his own team. Unless the nominee is
incompetent or some other major ethical or investigative problem arises
. . . then the president gets the benefit of the doubt. There is no
doubt about this nominee's qualifications or integrity.'' That is the
standard that this Senate has always applied to Cabinet nominees. As
others have noted, over the entire history of the Senate, this body has
voted to reject only 9 nominations to the President's Cabinet, and only
3 in the 20th Century. In 1993, Republicans applied that traditional
standard when we unanimously voted to confirm an attorney general
nominee whose views on the death penalty, the Second Amendment, and
abortion stood in stark contrast to our own. Unless those on the other
side wish to engage in rank hypocrisy, this is the standard we should
apply to Senator Ashcroft today.

Opponents of Senator Ashcroft have accused him of being unable to set
aside his opinions on certain laws sufficiently in order to enforce
those laws. 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 offices of
the left-wing liberal group's offices, 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
Missouri Attorney General for 8 years. He has been chief executive as
Missouri's 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 us 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
distortion.
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 this interim time 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 his 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.
John Ashcroft is committed to enforcing the civil rights of all
Americans. He has stated that the Civil Rights Division is the most
important division of the Justice Department and that he will make
enforcement of civil rights a priority during his tenure as Attorney
General. Contrary to the attacks of his critics, Senator Ashcroft has
demonstrated his commitment to equality under the law throughout his
career. For example, as Governor, he signed Missouri's first hate
crimes statute into law. He signed Missouri's Martin Luther King
Holiday into law and also signed the law establishing Scott Joplin's
house as Missouri's first and only historic site honoring an African-
American. John Ashcroft led the fight to save an independent Lincoln
University, founded by African-American soldiers. He also established
an award emphasizing academic excellence in the name of George
Washington Carver, a wonderful intellectual role model for all Missouri
students. As Governor, John Ashcroft was presented with 9 panels for
judicial appointment that contained minority candidates. In 8 of the 9
instances, Ashcroft appointed a minority candidate to fill the post,
and he appointed both of the minority candidates on the 9th panel to
judicial positions at a later date. He appointed many African-Americans
to Missouri's courts, including David Mason, Jimmy Edwards, Charles
Shaw and Michael Calvin, in St. Louis. He also appointed

[[Page S970]]

the first African-American judge on the Western Missouri Court of
Appeals in Kansas City, Missouri's second highest court. This jurist,
Ferdinand Gaitan, now serves on the U.S. District Court for Western
Missouri.
He continued this leadership in the Senate where he convened the only
Senate hearing on Racial Profiling (March 30, 2000) with Senator
Feingold. During that hearing, Senator Ashcroft spoke out strongly on
the issue stating that ``[U]sing race broadly as profiler in lieu of
individualized suspicion is, I believe, an unconstitutional practice.''
He has supported efforts to study the issue and during his hearing
testified that as Attorney General, he would continue the studies
already underway to examine racial and geographical disparities in
death penalty cases. In short, John Ashcroft's record demonstrates his
ability to lead a Justice Department of which we can all be proud.
John Ashcroft will be committed to enforcing the civil rights laws
protecting every American's right to vote and participate in the
political process. He has done so throughout his career. Some who
oppose Senator Ashcroft 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. It was opposed by 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 legislation. 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 fraud and ensure impartiality and administrative efficiency.
Moreover, these conclusions were sustained by the 8th 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, some have implied 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 go forward for any reason other than a conclusion that there
wasn't credible evidence to pursue the case.'' Objective people should
have no doubt that Senator Ashcroft will be vigorous in his enforcement
of the Voting Rights Act and related statutes.
Critics of Senator Ashcroft have also unfairly criticized his
testimony about his involvement with the desegregation cases in St.
Louis and Kansas City. Senator Ashcroft gave complete and responsive
answers to questions about these cases. Any assertions to the contrary
distort Senator Ashcroft's responses to a flurry of questions about
difficult and complicated cases in which he was involved over a decade
ago.

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, or not fully clear, but when questioned further, he
clarified his answers in an accurate and fair manner. Moreover, in an
extended response to a written question, he fully detailed Missouri's
liability and involvement with the case. Far from being misleading,
Senator Ashcroft's answers get to the heart of the distinctions in the
case between inter- and intra-district liability for segregation.
Some complain that Senator Ashcroft denied that the state was a party
to the lawsuit, however, the initial suit was filed in 1972 and did not
make the State a party. Eventually the State was made party to the
lawsuit in 1977 and Senator Ashcroft acknowledged this repeatedly in
his answers.
Second, Senator Ashcroft's critics argue that Senator Ashcroft denied
the State's liability. The State was found liable for school
segregation in St. Louis, but only for intra-district segregation
within the City of St. Louis. The remedy that the district court
ordered was inter-district, between St. Louis and its suburbs. The
State was never found liable for the inter-district segregation that
would justify such a far-ranging remedy involving the suburbs. Then-
Attorney General Ashcroft was battling against this inter-district
remedy, and it is fully accurate to say that the State was never found
liable for inter-district segregation.
Third, opponents of Senator Ashcroft unfairly charge that Senator
Ashcroft misleadingly stated that he followed all court orders in the
desegregation cases. Of course, these opponents cannot say that John
Ashcroft did not follow the orders, and must admit that John Ashcroft
complied with the terms of the orders. They can only criticize ``his
vigorous and repeated appeals.'' These appeals were undertaken in his
role as attorney general--as the legal representative of the State John
Ashcroft had to consider the State's best interests and raise all
reasonable legal appeals, which he did. To make a legal appeal is not
to disobey a court order. In fact many court orders were complied with
while the appeals were pending.
Fourth, the criticisms of Senator Ashcroft's actions strongly and
unfairly imply that he was indifferent to the problems of segregation.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Senator Ashcroft testified
that ``I have always opposed segregation. I have never opposed
integration. I believe that segregation is inconsistent with the 14th
Amendment's guaranteeing of equal protection. I supported integrating
the schools.'' What Senator Ashcroft opposed was court-ordered remedies
that we now know to have been wildly expensive and ineffective. Test
results have declined, graduation rates have remained at a dismal 30
percent, and the percentage of black students has remained about the
same in St. Louis schools. All of this for the price-tag of $1.7
billion. It is hard to see how a person who opposed this plan can be
considered against educational equality. The result of court-ordered
desegregation in St. Louis is just one example of why, as Bob Woodson
testified, a significant majority of African-Americans are against
forced busing for integration.
John Ashcroft will stand behind the commitments he made during his
confirmation and be a staunch defender of the civil rights of all
Americans. Senator Ashcroft has demonstrated his commitment to equality
through his

[[Page S971]]

record as Attorney General, Governor and Senator. Contrary to his
critics who have distorted his record on hiring, John Ashcroft has been
deeply committed to promoting equal access to government positions
during his tenure as both Attorney General and Governor of Missouri.
Witnesses testifying at the hearing made this commitment clear.
Mr. Jerry Hunter, former labor secretary of Missouri, testified that,
``Like President-elect George W. Bush, Senator Ashcroft followed a
policy of affirmative access and inclusiveness during his service to
the state of Missouri as attorney general, his two terms as governor,
and his one term in the United States Senate. During the eight years
that Senator Ashcroft was attorney general for the state of Missouri,
he recruited and hired minority lawyers. During his tenure as governor,
he appointed blacks to numerous boards and commissions . . . [B]ut I
would say to you on a personal note, Senator Ashcroft went out of his
way to find African-Americans to consider for appointments.''
Mr. Hunter further elaborated that, ``When Governor Ashcroft's term
ended in January of 1993, he had appointed more African-Americans to
state court judgeships than any previous governor in the history of the
state of Missouri. Governor Ashcroft was also bipartisan in his
appointment of state court judges. He appointed Republicans, Democrats
and independents. One of Governor Ashcroft's black appointees in St.
Louis was appointed, notwithstanding the fact that he was not a
Republican and that he was on a panel with a well-known white
Republican. Of the nine panels of nominees for state court judgeships,
which included at least one African-American, Governor Ashcroft
appointed eight black judges from those panels.''
Judge David Mason, who worked with Ashcroft in the Missouri Attorney
General's office stated, ``[A]s time went on, I begin to get a real
feel for this man and where his heart is. When the subject of Martin
Luther King Day came up, I was there. And I recall that he issued the
executive order to establish the first King Day, rather than wait for
the legislature to do it. Because, as you may recall, some of you, when
the Congress passed the holiday, they passed it at a time when the
Missouri legislature may not have been able to have the first holiday
contemporaneously with it. So he passed a King holiday by executive
order. He said, in doing so, he wanted his children to grow up in a
state that observed someone like Martin Luther King.''
Bob Woodson of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise uses
faith-based organizations to help troubled young people turn their
lives around. Mr. Woodson testified: ``Senator John Ashcroft is the
only person who, from the time he came into this body, reached out to
us. He's on the board of Teen Challenge. He's raised money for them. He
sponsored a charitable choice legislation that will stop the government
from trying to close them down because they don't have trained
professionals as drug counselors. We have an 80 percent success rate of
these faith-based organizations with a $60-a-day cost, when the
conventional, therapeutically secular program cost $600 a day with a 6
to 10 percent success rate. Senator Ashcroft has gone with us. He has
fought with us. And this legislation would help us.'' Mr. Woodsen
further stated that ``As a consequence, day before yesterday, 150 black
and Hispanic transformed drug addicts got on buses from all over this
nation and came here to support him. Fifty of them came from Victory
Temple throughout the state of Texas, spent two days on a Greyhound bus
at their own expense to come here to voice strong support for Senator
Ashcroft.''
Congressman J.C. Watts also testified: ``I've worked with [John
Ashcroft] on legislation concerning poor communities, under-served
communities. I have always found John Ashcroft to have nothing but the
utmost respect and dignity for one's skin color. I heard John say
yesterday in some of his testimony that his faith requires him to
respect one's skin color. And I think that's the way it should be. [I]n
my dealings with John, I have had nothing but the utmost respect for
him when it comes to his dealings with people of different skin
color.''
These testimonials and Senator Ashcroft's record of hiring and
appointments as Missouri Attorney General and Governor demonstrate
beyond any reasonable doubt that he will be committed to equal
opportunity as Attorney General of the United States.
Many have expressed 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 John'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.
John Ashcroft's testimony on this issue demonstrates that he will be
a

[[Page S972]]

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.
The anti-Ashcroft groups also took advantage of a controversy
concerning Bob Jones University in order to wage a ``guilt by
association'' attack on John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft's visit to the
school was not controversial when it occurred in May 1999. In fact,
politicians of both parties had spoken there prior to Senator Ashcroft.
Early in 2000, however, approximately eight months after John
Ashcroft's visit, Bob Jones University became a flash point during the
primary election because opponents of then-Governor George W. Bush
accused Bush of associating with an anti-Catholic statement that
appeared on the University's Internet site.
Following the flap over Bush's visit, John Ashcroft said, ``I didn't
really know they had these positions,'' and ``[f]rankly, I reject the
anti-Catholic position of Bob Jones University categorically.'' Despite
having repudiated the offending statement, John Ashcroft faced a new
round of criticism for his appearance after he was nominated to be
Attorney General. The special interest groups aligned against him
attempted to associate John Ashcroft with every form of bigotry and
intolerance they could.
Any controversy over John Ashcroft's speech at Bob Jones University
should have been put to rest by John Ashcroft's testimony at his
confirmation hearings. That's when we finally got the chance to ask
Senator Ashcroft what he thought. And Senator Ashcroft made it clear
that he ``reject[s] any racial intolerance or religious intolerance
that has been associated with[,] or is associated with[,]'' Bob Jones
University. He couldn't have been more firm.
Senator Ashcroft went on to explain that ``[he] want[s] to make it
very clear that [he] reject[s] racial and religious intolerance.'' He
said he does not endorse any bigoted views by virtue of ``having made
an appearance in any faith or any congregation.'' He said, for example,
that he has visited churches which do not ``allow women in certain
roles,'' and that he does not endorse that view, either.
Apparently, Ashcroft's answer eliminated any doubt about his personal
views. As Senator Leahy told Senator Ashcroft during the hearing, ``I
made my position very clear yesterday on how I feel about you on any
questions of racial or religious bias. I stated that neither I nor
anybody on this committee would make that claim about you.'' Even
Catholic groups were satisfied. A spokesperson for the Catholic League
said, ``In short, the controversy over Ashcroft is much ado about
nothing as far as the Catholic League is concerned.''
Some outside groups had questioned the meaning of the speech that
Senator Ashcroft gave during his visit to Bob Jones University. Senator
Ashcroft explained during the confirmation hearing that the phrase ``We
have no king but Jesus,'' was a representation of what colonists were
saying at the time of the American Revolution. He said that the point
of his speech was ``the idea that the ultimate authority of the
ultimate idea of freedom in America is not governmentally derived.'' I
don't think anyone in the Senate would take issue with that. It is an
understatement to say that this idea is well-documented in the
Founders' writings.
Lacking any basis to criticize John Ashcroft's May 1999 appearance,
members of the Judiciary Committee went in search of controversy by
asking Senator Ashcroft if he would go to Bob Jones University again if
invited as Attorney General. He said he would ``speak at places where
[he] believe[s] [he] can unite people and move them in the right
direction.'' In saying that, he contritely explained that his
confirmation hearings--``and the prelude to th[o]se hearings''--taught
him to be ``sensitive at a higher level now than [he] was before, that
the attorney general in particular needs to be careful about what he or
she does.'' Senator Ashcroft said that, if confirmed, he ``would be
sensitive to accepting invitations so as to not allow a presumption to
be made that I was endorsing things that would divide people instead of
unite them.'' This answer apparently did not satisfy some on the
Committee who have since argued that he should have pledged never to
return to the University.
But as Senator Ashcroft explained at his hearing, it is shortsighted
to make a pledge not to go somewhere just because you disagree with
them. John Ashcroft pointed out that Bob Jones University has
``abandoned the policy on interracial dating which was offensive''
after that policy became a focus of attention last year. I think John
Ashcroft was contrite about what he learned and correct not to rule out
visiting places where he thinks his presence could be a force for
positive change.
There has been much talk during the nominations process and in the
press about the ``Ashcroft Standard.'' This is a catch-phrase invented
by opponents of Senator Ashcroft who wish to create the impression that
there is something unseemly about a senator vigorously exercising his
constitutional duty to advise and give consent to executive branch
nominees. But the Ashcroft Standard is strawman--created only so that
it might be criticized.
It is telling that this so-called Ashcroft Standard has been left
undefined by those who invoke it. Its very hollowness is meant to evoke
something inappropriate and suspect a way of evaluating far outside of
the mainstream. Apparently this Standard is to be feared, because my
colleagues repeatedly stated during the hearings that they would be
magnanimous in not applying the Ashcroft Standard to John Ashcroft
himself. But I suspect that John Ashcroft would pass the Ashcroft
standard with flying colors.
In fact the criteria that Senator Ashcroft used to evaluate executive
branch nominees are entirely appropriate and in keeping with the
Senate's duty to give ``advice and consent'' to the President.
For instance, John Ashcroft applied his ``Standard'' to confirm all
but 15 of President Clinton's 1,636 nominees. He voted to approve every
Cabinet nomination made by President Clinton. Of President Clinton's
230 judicial nominees, Senator Ashcroft voted to confirm 218. There is
also an underlying insinuation that the Ashcroft Standard is tinged
with racial bias--and yet Senator Ashcroft voted to confirm 26 of 28
African-American judicial nominees.
With so many of President Clinton's nominees getting past the
Ashcroft Standard, some might argue that it's far too lenient, but that
is the nature of the Senate's role. The President is thought to have
significant leeway in choosing executive branch officials. The Senate
gives advice and consent, but with great deference to the president's
choice. As Hamilton wrote in the Federalist number 76,

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the
Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence
would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent
operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of
favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to
prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State
prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment,
or from a view to popularity.

The advice and consent role of the Senate must be exercised with an
eye to the moral character of the nominee and his suitability for the
office to which he is nominated. But it is a role that must be
exercised with some natural deference to the prerogatives of the
President. Indeed, this is a deference that has not been shown to
President Bush during Senator Ashcroft's four days of hearings followed
by more than 350 written questions.
The crux of the Senate's confirmation role is to not to quibble with
the policy preferences of the President's nominees, but rather to
evaluate the character and moral fitness of the nominee. Indeed, I ask
myself when presented with a nominee whether this person will
faithfully execute the office to which they have been appointed,
upholding the laws of the United States in the given position. I
believe that Senator Ashcroft has applied similar criterion when
evaluating nominees. This is not a sinister standard, but rather a
mostly ordinary one.
When this question is asked about Senator Ashcroft the answer is
incredibly clear. As attorney general of Missouri John Ashcroft showed
time and

[[Page S973]]

again that he was willing to uphold law with which he disagreed. John
Ashcroft testified, ``I understand that being attorney general means
enforcing the laws as they are written, not enforcing my own personal
preference; it means advancing the national interest, not advocating my
personal interest.''
For instance, in 1979 John Ashcroft issued an attorney general's
opinion stating that under the state constitution and the law of
Missouri, a local school board of education had no legal authority to
grant permission for the distribution of religious publications to the
student body on school grounds. In another situation, against the
demands of pro-life advocates, then-attorney general Ashcroft directed
the State of Missouri to maintain the confidentiality of abortion
records because a fair reading of the law required it.
Senator Ashcroft has not only testified that he will follow laws with
which he disagrees, he has repeatedly shown that he does follow such
laws. He has exhibited probity in office as attorney general, governor
and senator. It is hard to imagine that he will not execute the office
of United States Attorney General with equal integrity and commitment.
Indeed, I am certain that Senator Ashcroft passes the much maligned
Ashcroft Standard.
So what is the Ashcroft Standard anyway? I admit that I am not quite
sure. Is it a careful review of the nominee's written record? A
judgment about how the nominee will enforce the law? A healthy dose of
deference to the executive prerogative? An appreciation for diversity?
These are the standards that I saw applied by Senator Ashcroft.
The opponents of Senator Ashcroft have placed considerable emphasis
on several specific nominations which I will discuss in turn.
John Ashcroft's opponents have mischaracterized his actions with
respect to the James Hormel nomination, and have fabricated innuendo
aimed at tarnishing John Ashcroft's 30-year record of fairness with
respect to employment of people without regard to sexual orientation.
I supported James Hormel's nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg. I
thought he was qualified for that post. At the same time, however, I
respected the fact that others in this body, including Senator
Ashcroft, did not share my opinion. I cannot conclude--as some people
have--that because Senator Ashcroft and I disagreed, that Senator
Ashcroft's views, which were based on the totality of the record, were
not valid. I have been in public service long enough to understand that
thoughtful people can have honest differences of opinion on such
matters without holding unsupportable or fundamentally biased points of
view.
Now, there has been a great deal of confusion about Senator
Ashcroft's role in the Hormel nomination. Outside special interest
groups--which are trying to derail Senator Ashcroft's nomination have
accused him of singlehandedly blocking or stopping James Hormel's
nomination simply because of Hormel's sexual orientation. These charges
are simply false. Although, as John Ashcroft told the Judiciary
Committee, he voted against the nomination when it came to a vote in
the Foreign Relations Committee, he did nothing to stop that
nomination. John Ashcroft did not block a Senate vote on Mr. Hormel's
nomination. In fact, Senator Ashcroft did not do anything to keep James
Hormel's nomination from progressing. It was Senator Hutchinson who put
a hold on the vote. In a letter dated January 24, 2001, Senator
Hutchinson told Ashcroft that ``I feel it is important to set the
record straight that you were in no way involved in the effort to delay
Mr. Hormel's consideration by the full Senate.''
So let's look beyond the smokescreen of unsupported innuendo to
examine what we really know about John Ashcroft. During the
confirmation hearings, Senator Leahy asked John Ashcroft directly about
his motives with respect to the James Hormel nomination. Senator Leahy
asked, ``Did you block his nomination from coming to a vote because he
is gay?'' And Senator Ashcroft said, ``I did not.'' He could not have
been more clear. And when a man of John Ashcroft's integrity makes such
a clear statement, we can take him at his word.
Of course, opponents of John Ashcroft do not want to take him as his
word. Some outside special interest groups are trying to use his Hormel
nomination vote to paint a false portrait of a man who acts in a biased
way against homosexuals. But there is absolutely no evidence in the
record to support that accusation. Senator Ashcroft made it very clear,
both during his hearing and in his responses to numerous written
questions, that ``sexual orientation has never been something that I've
used in hiring in any of the jobs, in any of the offices I've held.''
In an effort to cloud this crystal-clear statement, the forces
opposing Ashcroft presented to the media--not to the Judiciary
Committee--a man named Paul Offner, who claimed that John Ashcroft
asked him about sexual orientation 16 years ago in an interview. Mr.
Offner's accusations have been entirely rebutted by two eyewitnesses
present during that interview, both of whom have said that John
Ashcroft never asked Mr. Offner--or any of the many other people he
interviewed for jobs--about sexual preference. Carl Koupal, who sat in
on numerous interviews with John Ashcroft as head of Ashcroft's
gubernatorial transition team, said, ``I can say John Ashcroft did not
ask that question of him or any other candidate we spoke to.'' Another
Ashcroft aide, Duncan Kincheloe, said, ``It's inconceivable to me, and
I'm certain I would remember if it had been asked. I've never heard him
ask about that, and I've sat through dozens and dozens of interviews
with him.'' This evidence should lay to rest any questions about John
Ashcroft's past record of fairness with respect to sexual orientation.
In addition to that past record, we also have Senator Ashcroft's
clear pledge for the future. He told the Judiciary Committee in no
uncertain terms that he ``will enforce the law equally without regard
to sexual orientation if appointed and confirmed as attorney general.''
He also promised that sexual preference ``will not be a consideration
in hiring at the Department of Justice'' if he is confirmed. And this
statement reflects more than his promise to uphold current policy; it
reflects John Ashcroft's own judgment. He said, ``Even if the executive
order [barring the consideration of sexual orientation as relevant to
hiring] would be repealed, I would still not consider sexual
orientation in hiring at the Department of Justice because I don't
believe it relevant to the responsibilities.'' Now, that is a very
strong statement, Mr. President. Especially because it comes from a
person of unquestioned integrity.
The facts described above convince me completely that John Ashcroft
will always act fairly in his law enforcement decisions and hiring
decisions to people regardless of sexual orientation.
While reasonable minds can differ and come to different judgments on
the matter, there were many legitimate reasons to vote against
confirmation for Judge White. In fact, every Republican thought it was
appropriate to do so. Several of my colleagues have argued that Senator
Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record and wrongly painted him as pro-
criminal and anti-law enforcement, but many of us have reviewed Judge
White's record and were greatly troubled by his dissenting opinions in
several death penalty cases. In these cases Judge White displayed a
real inclination to overturn death sentences, even when they were
called for by law.
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.

[[Page S974]]

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
troubled me enough to vote against his confirmation.
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, 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.''
Since his nomination for a federal judgship was defeated, Judge White
has continued to dissent in criminal cases. For example, in Missouri v.
Johns, 2000 WL 1779262, Dec. 5, 2000, a jury sentenced the defendant
Johns to death for a murder in which he shot the victim seven times,
including a fatal shot to the head. Following this murder, Johns evaded
capture for six months, during which time he committed two more murders
and several robberies. When finally located by authorities, Johns took
a hostage, placed a gun to her head, and threaten to kill her.
Johns confessed to the initial killing, but claimed that he did so in
self-defense, despite the fact that he shot the victim seven times. In
addition, Johns confessed to the robbery and murder of the two other
victims during his flight from justice.
During the trial, Johns tried to introduce evidence that the victim
had a violent reputation, but the trial court excluded the proffered
evidence on the grounds of relevancy. On appeal, Johns argued that the
inability to admit evidence of the victim's reputation harmed his
theory of self-defense.
In the Missouri Supreme Court, a 5-2 majority ruled that the trial
court did not commit reversible error and upheld the verdict and
sentence. Judge White, however, joined a dissent with only one other
judge which argued that ``Johns was deprived of a fair trial with
respect to his self-defense theory.''

Like the defendant in Missouri v. Johnson, the defendant in Missouri
v. Johns murdered several people and confessed to the killings. There
was no doubt about the defendant's guilt in either case, yet Judge
White dissented and would have granted a new trial to both defendants.
I bring up the recent case of Missouri v. Johns not to criticize
Judge White or reargue his nomination. Instead, I mention this decision
only to show that there was a legitimate basis for Senator Ashcroft's
concerns about Judge White in death penalty cases. Senator Ashcroft has
made the very valid point that if Judge White had been confirmed as a
federal district judge, he would have had enormous power to reverse
state criminal convictions, including death penalty sentences,
unilaterally because of the federal writ of habeas corpus.
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 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.'' (Cong. Rec. S. 11871, Oct. 4, 1999). Other
Senators have repeatedly suggested that the Senate has ``subtle'' means
of holding up nominees. But at the same time senators are rebuked for
placing holds on nominees. 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.
Senator Ashcroft has also been unfairly criticized for opposing the
nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division of the
Justice Department. 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.
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.
Senator Ashcroft did not distort Mr. Lee's testimony. When Mr. Lee
stated the test of Adarand 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. Mr.
Lee's misleading description can properly be assailed as a fundamental
mischaracterization of the law.
Senator Ashcroft has stated that he opposed Mr. Lee because of his
record of advocacy and his mischaracterization of Supreme Court
precedent. The failure to recognize the established legal standard
established by the Supreme Court 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 are amply supported by
the record.
Another area in which Senator Ashcroft has been unfairly attacked is
his ability to enforce the law in areas related to abortion. Many of
those opposing Senator Ashcroft have taken great pains to state that
they do not oppose him because of his ideology, but then go on to say
they cannot support him because of his positions on abortion issues.
Isn't that ideology?
Make no mistake about it, Senator Ashcroft has a consistent pro-life
record. Contrary to what his opponents would have you believe, that is
not extremist or ``out of the mainstream.'' Millions of Americans share
the same view. In the end, what is important is Senator Ashcroft's
commitment to enforce the law as its been interpreted by the Supreme
Court--and not the policy positions he advocated as a legislator.
While Senator Ashcroft's critics have spared nothing in their
attempts to

[[Page S975]]

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
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 v. 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 will 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 anti-violence 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
or ``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 anti-violence 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 anti-violence 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 argue 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 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 known personally by
almost every member of this body.
I was quite surprised to hear Senator Ashcroft's opponents criticize
his work on behalf of faith-based organizations that everyone
recognizes do remarkable good works in every community across this
nation. Senator Ashcroft has participated in and encouraged these
programs at both a personal and policy level.
I think we should be proud of Senator Ashcroft's efforts to assist
the disadvantaged. Senator Ashcroft was the author of the charitable
choice provision in the landmark Welfare Reform Act of 1996. That
provision encourages faith-based organizations to participate in the
welfare reform effort on the same basis as secular organizations. As a
result, faith-based groups can now, for example, conduct drug-treatment
and job placement programs for the poor. These programs and other
similar faith-based programs have proved remarkably successful. As the
noted civil rights activist Robert Woodson testified before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft's charitable choice legislation
``may do more to help blacks solve the real problems in their own
communities than anything else government has done.''
Some critics claim that Senator Ashcroft's charitable choice
provision violates the separation of church and state embodied in the
First Amendment. These criticisms, however, are misplaced. The
charitable choice law states that no federal funds ``shall be expended
for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.'' Moreover, the
charitable choice law relies on Supreme Court precedents to clarify
what is constitutionally permissible when state and local governments
cooperate with religious and charitable organizations. The charitable
choice law also allows beneficiaries who object to the religious
character of the organization to receive assistance from an alternative
provider.
During last year's Presidential campaign of 2000, both President
George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore supported the charitable
choice law as a

[[Page S976]]

means to empower faith-based charities. As President Bush recently
said: ``A compassionate society is one which recognizes the great power
of faith. We in government must not fear faith-based programs, we must
welcome faith-based programs.''
Thanks in large part to Senator Ashcroft's leadership, President Bush
will be able to expand the role of faith-based charities in fighting
poverty, addiction and other social ills. Based on the charitable
choice law, President Bush created an Office of Faith-Based and
Community Initiatives in the White House last week. This office will be
led by the prominent University of Pennsylvania professor John DiIulio.
In short, the charitable choice law was one of Senator Ashcroft's most
important legislative accomplishments and something that should weigh
in favor of his nomination, not against it.
The criticism leveled against Senator Ashcroft on Charitable Choice
suggests the possibility of an even more dangerous problem, religious
intolerance. 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 in
considering the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of
the United States, some are coming very close to violating the spirit,
if not the letter of that assurance.
In response to a question I posed to Senator Ashcroft about the wide
disparity of treatment accorded him as a person of faith and that
accorded to Senator Lieberman when he was running for Vice-President,
and whether anything in his faith background would interfere with his
ability to apply the law as critics had charged, Senator Ashcroft said:

Those looking for reassurance that Senator Ashcroft will enforce the
law as written need look no further than this brief paragraph. Senator
Ashcroft's critics and supporters alike uniformly agree that he is a
man who takes his faith seriously. If he says his faith compels him to
abide by the law, I think his promise carries great weight. As he said
in his opening statement, he takes his oath of office seriously, it
being a sacred and solemn obligation. Nevertheless, he 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 because he says he will swear to uphold the law.
Well, his critics cannot have it both ways. Apparently, his critics do
not understand either a faith that transcends politics and grasping
after power or the distinction between being an advocate for change in
the law and being an impartial magistrate to apply the law.
The Attorney General is perhaps the most important position in the
President's cabinet. The Department of Justice has a long and storied
history. It represents all Americans in the pursuit of justice. As
such, the Department of Justice demands an Attorney General with
great ability, integrity, and judgment. John Ashcroft has all these
qualities.

Senator Ashcroft's abilities are demonstrated by the fact he was
elected to statewide office five times in Missouri, a classic swing
state in America's political landscape. As Attorney General and
Governor of Missouri, John Ashcroft served with distinction and built a
record of public service and devotion to the rule of law. He continued
that proud service representing Missouri in the United States Senate.
His leadership and integrity has been recognized by people in both
political parties throughout his career. He was elected President of
the National Association of Attorneys General by his fellow state
attorneys general. As Governor of Missouri, John Ashcroft was elected
Chairman of the National Governors Association by his fellow governors.
Each time John Ashcroft was elected to these prestigious positions, the
majority of state attorneys general and governors were Democrats. The
fact that he was chosen to lead these organizations while in the
minority party is a testament to his integrity and ability. Mr.
President, John Ashcroft is the most qualified nominee for Attorney
General in history. We are fortunate to have him as a nominee. I look
forward to his stewardship of the Department of Justice.
Mr. President, much of the debate over the nomination of John
Ashcroft has focused only on a few important issues, but those are not
the only important issues central to the core mission of the Department
of Justice. I believe the Senate would be well-served to consider the
Ashcroft nomination in light of all of the important duties of the
Attorney General. When this debate is placed in the proper perspective,
it becomes even more obvious how qualified Senator Ashcroft is to be
the next Attorney General of the United States.
The Department of Justice was established by Congress in 1870. It is
the largest law firm in the United States with 123,000 employees and an
annual budget of approximately $21 billion. Through its thousands of
lawyers, agents, and investigators, the Justice Department plays a
vital role in fighting violent crime and drug trafficking, ensuring
business competition in the marketplace, and enforcing immigration and
naturalization laws. Consider the following major components of the
Justice Department in light of the qualifications of Senator Ashcroft:
The Civil Rights Division was established in 1957 to secure the
effective enforcement of civil rights for all Americans. The Civil
Rights Division is responsible for enforcing federal statutes that
prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability,
religion, and national origin. In order to enforce these landmark laws,
the Civil Rights Division engages in a variety of litigation to fight
discrimination in employment, housing and immigration. In particular,
the litigation brought by the Civil Rights Division under the Voting
Rights Act has had a profound influence on the electoral landscape in
the last three decades.
As Senator Ashcroft stated at his confirmation hearing: ``No part of
the Department of Justice is more important than the Civil Rights
Division.'' John Ashcroft vigorously enforced civil rights laws as the
Attorney General and Governor of Missouri. He signed Missouri's first
hate crimes statute. Not content to wait for the legislature to act,
John Ashcroft made Missouri one of the first States to recognize Martin
Luther King Day by issuing an executive order. He also led the fight to
save Lincoln University, the university in Missouri founded by African-
American Civil War veterans.
As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft held the first hearing on racial
profiling in the history of Congress. When asked at his confirmation
hearing about his priorities for the Justice Department, Senator
Ashcroft cited the abolition of racial profiling as one of his top two
priorities.
Senator Ashcroft stated at his confirmation hearing that the
paramount civil right is personal safety. The Attorney General is
America's chief law enforcement officer, and managing the Criminal
Division is the most important aspect of the Attorney General's duties.
The Criminal Division oversees thousands of federal agents and is
charged with, among other things, investigating and prosecuting drug
dealers, illegal gun traffickers, bank robbers, child pornographers,
computer hackers, and terrorists. The Criminal Division has a visible
and tangible effect on the lives of all Americans.
I have no doubt that, given his vast experience as a public servant,
Senator Ashcroft understands and appreciates the mission of the
Criminal Division. Throughout his long career as Missouri Attorney
General, Missouri Governor, and United States Senator, Senator Ashcroft
has been a strong advocate of tough and effective criminal law
enforcement.
Perhaps the greatest threat facing our nation today is the scourge of
illegal drugs. For years, Senator Ashcroft has been a leader in the
fight against illegal drugs. In 1996, Senator Ashcroft helped me enact
the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act, which increased
penalties for the manufacture and trafficking of methamphetamine.
Senator Ashcroft also helped

[[Page S977]]

enact federal laws that increased mandatory minimum sentences for
methamphetamine offenses and authorized courts to order persons
convicted of methamphetamine offenses to pay for the costs of
laboratory cleanup. Last year, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to
target additional resources to local law enforcement agencies to fight
methamphetamine.
Senator Ashcroft also understands that drug treatment and prevention
are vital components of an effective drug strategy. In last year's
methamphetamine legislation, Senator Ashcroft included funding for drug
education and prevention programs, including resources for school-based
anti-methamphetamine initiatives. As Attorney General and Governor of
Missouri, Senator Ashcroft increased funding for anti-drug programs by
almost 40%, the vast majority of which was for education, prevention
and treatment.
During his confirmation hearing, Senator Ashcroft has also made clear
that prosecuting gun crimes will be a top priority of the Ashcroft
Justice Department. Unfortunately, gun prosecutions have not always
been a priority for the Department of Justice. 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. In the Senate, John Ashcroft was one of the
leaders in fighting gun crimes. To reverse 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.
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.
In order to maintain tough federal penalties, Senator Ashcroft
sponsored legislation to require a five-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. I have no doubt that with John Ashcroft as Attorney
General, the Justice Department will target and prosecute gun crimes
with unprecedented zeal.
To his credit, Senator Ashcroft understands that the vast majority of
criminal law enforcement takes place at the state and local level.
Given his tenure as Missouri Attorney General and Governor, Senator
Ashcroft appreciates the important role that the federal government can
play in supporting state and local authorities by providing resources
and training. He also understands that the Justice Department should
provide such support without intruding into traditional areas of state
sovereignty.
In the Senate, Senator Ashcroft steadfastly supported state and local
law enforcement. He won enactment of a bill that extends higher
education financial assistance to spouses and dependent children of law
enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. He was the principal
proponent of the ``Care for Police Survivors Act,'' a measure that
increases benefits to the survivors of public safety officers killed in
the line of duty. Along with Senator Biden, Senator Ashcroft co-
sponsored legislation to reauthorize the COPS program.
In addition, Senator Ashcroft cosponsored the ``Local Law Enforcement
Enhancement Act of 1995.'' This act allocated $1 billion to state and
local law enforcement to update and computerize criminal records,
automated fingerprint systems, and DNA identification operations. John
Ashcroft also cosponsored the ``21st Century Justice Act'' which
included Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
Incentive Grants. These grants have provided federal resources to
States to build prisons to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders.
Given his record, it is no surprise that law enforcement groups such as
the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District
Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Police
Organizations are united in their support for Senator Ashcroft's
nomination.
The Civil Division represents the United States government, including
executive departments and agencies, in civil litigation. First and
foremost, the Civil Division defends the constitutionality of federal
statutes, regulations, and executive orders. The Civil Division also
litigates complex commercial cases. This litigation is especially
important for property rights because the Civil Division represents the
federal government against claims that private property was taken for
public use without just compensation. In addition, the Civil Division
represents the federal government in consumer litigation under various
consumer protection and public health statutes.
Senator Ashcroft's experience as the Attorney General of Missouri
prepared him well to oversee the Civil Division. John Ashcroft
established the Consumer Affairs Division in the Missouri Attorney
General's office. He brought many consumer protection actions,
including odometer tampering cases and financial pyramid schemes. In
Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed
a brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the right of
state attorneys general to conduct antitrust investigations. In the
Senate, John Ashcroft helped enact legislation to combat telemarketing
scams against senior citizens.
Created in 1909, the Environment and Natural Resources Division is
the Nation's chief environmental lawyer. It is responsible for
litigating cases ranging from the protection of endangered species to
the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. In addition to prosecuting
environmental crimes, the Environment and Natural Resources Division
ensures that federal environmental laws are implemented in a fair and
consistent manner.
As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft aggressively enforced
that state's environmental protection laws. To cite but a few examples,
Attorney General Ashcroft brought suit to prevent an electric company
from causing oxygen levels in downstream waters to harm fish. He also
sought to recover damages from the electric company.
Attorney General Ashcroft brought a successful action against the
owner of an apartment complex for violations of the Missouri Clean
Water Law relating to treatment of waste water, and he sued the owner
of a trailer park for violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law.
As Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft also filed numerous
briefs in the United States Supreme Court that advanced environmental
protections. For example:
In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation
& Development Commission, Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief
supporting a California law that conditioned the construction of
nuclear power plants on findings that adequate storage and disposal
facilities are available.
In Sporhase v. Nebraska, Attorney General Ashcroft endorsed the State
of Nebraska's effort to stop defendants from transporting Nebraska
groundwater into Colorado without a permit.
In Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief supporting the Natural
Resources Defense Council's position on tougher environmental
regulations relating to storage of nuclear wastes.
As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft issued numerous legal
opinions that furthered the enforcement of environmental laws. I would
like to describe a few of these formal opinions. In Attorney General
Opinion No. 123-84, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that
underground injection

[[Page S978]]

wells constitute pollution of the waters of the state and are subject
to regulation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources under the
state's Clean Water Act. Attorney General Ashcroft also opined that it
would be unlawful to build or operate such a well unless a permit had
been obtained from the Clean Water Commission.
In Attorney General Opinion No. 67, Attorney General Ashcroft issued
an opinion that operators of surface mines must obtain a permit for
each year that the mine was un-reclaimed. In reaching this opinion,
Attorney General Ashcroft determined that the operator of the mine must
have a permit continuously from the time mining operations begin until
reclamation of the site is complete. Attorney General Ashcroft
concluded that the 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.''
In Attorney General Opinion No. 189, Attorney General Ashcroft issued
an opinion that Missouri's cities and counties had the authority to
require that all solid waste be disposed of at approved solid waste
recovery facilities, rather than be buried in landfills. In rendering
his opinion, Attorney General Ashcroft gave credence to 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.'' To those who have irresponsibly charged that Senator
Ashcroft will not enforce our environmental laws, I say this: Look at
his record.
In conclusion, there are other offices in the Justice Department that
are also very important. In the interest of time, however, I have
focused on a select few. My point today is a simple one when this
nomination is considered in light of the mission of the Department of
Justice, it becomes apparent how well-qualified John Ashcroft is to be
Attorney General. I look forward to his stewardship of the Department
of Justice.
Mr. President, I rise to respond to mischaracterizations about John
Ashcroft's role in the James Hormel nomination, and about John
Ashcroft's public record of fairness with respect to employment of
people.
Let me say at the outset that I supported James Hormel's nomination
as Ambassador to Luxembourg. I thought he was qualified for that post.
At the same time, however, I respected the fact that others in this
body, including Senator Ashcroft, did not share my opinion. I cannot
conclude--as some people have--that because Senator Ashcroft and I
disagreed, that Senator Ashcroft's views, which were based on the
totality of the record, were not valid. I have been in public service
long enough to understand that thoughtful people can have honest
differences of opinion on such matters without holding unsupportable or
fundamentally biased points of view.
Now, there has been a great deal of confusion about Senator John
Ashcroft's role in the Hormel nomination. Outside special interest
groups--which are trying to derail Senator Ashcroft's nomination--have
accused him of singlehandedly blocking or stopping James Hormel's
nomination simply because of Hormel's sexual orientation. These charges
are false. Although, as John Ashcroft told the Judiciary Committee, he
voted against the nomination when it came to a vote in the Foreign
Relations Committee, he did nothing to stop that nomination. John
Ashcroft did not block a Senate vote on Mr. Hormel's nomination, and he
did not vote against that nomination on the floor because it never came
to the floor.
So let's look beyond the smokescreen of unsupported innuendo to
examine what we really know about John Ashcroft. during the
confirmation hearings, Senator Leahy and John Ashcroft directly about
his motives with respect to the James Hormel nomination. Senator Leahy
asked, ``Did you block his nomination from coming to a vote because he
is gay?'' And Senator Ashcroft said, ``I did not.'' He could not have
been more clear. And when a man of John Ashcroft's integrity makes such
a clear statement, we should take him at his word. Still, however,
several Senators have repeated the unsupported allegation that
Ashcroft's sole reason for voting against Hormel is that Hormel is gay.
Some opponents of John Ashcroft are taking the position of using his
Hormel nomination vote to paint a false portrait of a man who acts in a
biased way towards homosexuals. But there is absolutely no evidence in
the record to support that accusation. Senator Ashcroft made it very
clear, both during his hearing and in his responses to numerous written
questions, that ``sexual orientation has never been something that I've
used in hiring in any of the jobs, in any of the offices I've held.''
In an effort to cloud this crystal-clear statement, the forces
opposing Ashcroft presented to the media a man named Paul Offner, who
claimed that John Ashcroft asked him about sexual orientation 16 years
ago in an interview. Mr. Offner's accusations have been entirely
rebutted not only by Senator Ashcroft but also by two eyewitnesses
present during that interview, both of whom have said that John
Ashcroft never asked Mr. Offner--or any of the many other people he
interviewed for jobs--about sexual preference. Carl Koupal, who sat in
on numerous interviews with John Ashcroft as head of Ashcroft's
gubernatorial transition team, said, ``I can say John Ashcroft did not
ask that question of him or any other candidate we spoke to.'' Another
Ashcroft aide, Duncan Kincheloe, said, ``It's inconceivable to me, and
I'm certain I would remember if it had been asked. I've never heard him
ask about that, and I've sat through dozens and dozens of interviews
with him.'' This evidence should lay to rest questions related to the
uncorroborated charges of Mr. Offner.
At least one Senator, however, continues to ignore the facts and draw
out the innuendo. That Senator said that Mr. Offner's allegations--even
if untrue--would not have had any resonance if it were not for a
history of unfairness. But that Senator has presented absolutely not
evidence of any such history. Not a single person has come forward with
a credible story of unfairness in John Ashcroft's 30-year public life,
during which he conducted hundreds if not thousands of interviews and
meetings, and made many hiring and firing decisions. Given all the
public attention to this issue, and all of the league of special
interest powerful lobbyists who are working hard to find just one
witness against John Ashcroft, the absence of such a witness speaks
loudly and clearly.
In addition to his 30-year record of fairness, we also have Senator
Ashcroft's clear pledge for the future. He told the Judiciary Committee
in no uncertain terms that he ``will enforce the law equally without
regard to sexual orientation if appointed and confirmed as attorney
general.'' He also promised that sexual preference ``will not be a
consideration in hiring at the Department of Justice'' if he is
confirmed. And this statement reflects more than his promise to uphold
current policy; it reflects John Ashcroft's own judgment. He said,
``even if the executive order [barring the consideration of sexual
orientation as relevant to hiring] would be repealed, I would still not
consider sexual orientation in hiring at the Department of Justice
because I don't believe it relevant to the responsibilities.'' Now,
that is a very strong statement, Mr. President. Especially because it
comes from a person of unquestioned integrity.
The facts that I have just described convince me completely that John
Ashcroft, once confirmed, will always act fairly in his law enforcement
decisions and hiring decisions to people regardless of sexual
orientation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print an op-ed from the
Wall Street Journal from today.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Wall Street Journal, Feb. 1, 2001]

The Hormel Democrats

With Bill Clinton having split for Chappaqua with the
Spielberg china, Democrats have a chance to present a new
image to the public. Yet by opposing John Ashcroft for
Attorney General, Senate Democrats seem intent on reminding
Middle America why it voted against Al Gore.
Some of our readers may already have seen the nearby map of
America breaking down

[[Page S979]]

the vote in the last election. Mr. Gore won the two left
coasts, the latte towns and tonier suburbs, and remnants of
the progressive upper Midwest. President Bush won everything
else. The map reflects a country divided by culture, with the
traditionalist middle rejecting the anything-goes mores of
the Clinton years.
Well, here we go again, with the same culturally liberal
interests groups who ordered around Mr. Gore now making the
Ashcroft vote a litmus test for Senate Democrats. NARAL, NOW,
People for the American Way and the rest know they can't
defeat him. But they're twisting arms behind the scenes to
get as large a negative vote as possible, as a way to show
their muscle and to warn Mr. Bush not to name any
conservatives to the Supreme Court.
The problem for many Democrats, however, is that voters may
notice the company they're keeping. Barbara Boxer, the super-
liberal from California, was the first Senate Democrat to
declare against Mr. Ashcroft. Ted Kennedy followed close
behind, this week joined by Pat Leahy from the Swedish
Republic of Vermont and the noted moderate from the great
state of New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton. This may all be
thrilling news in Hollywood and Manhattan. But we wonder how
this brand of Democratic leadership is going to look in, say,
Georgia, Montana or South Dakota.
Especially because this time the liberal Borking strategy
has been a bust. First the interest groups played the race
card, but not even rejected judicial nominee Ronnie White
would say that Mr. Ashcroft was racially motivated. The
debate over Judge White had been about crime, specifically
the death penalty, and Democrats sure didn't want to be soft
on that. Then the opposition tried the gender/abortion card,
but Mr. Ashcroft defused that one by pledging to enforce even
laws he dislikes.
The latest attack line has been to suggest that Mr.
Ashcroft is a relentless gay basher. Democrats went to the
unusual lengths of calling in the recently returned U.S.
ambassador to Luxembourg, James Hormel, to allege that in
opposing his nomination to be ambassador Mr. Ashcroft had
shown himself to be intolerant. In fact, fellow Republican
Tim Hutchinson admitted that he (and not Mr. Ashcroft) was
the Senator who had placed a hold on Mr. Hormel, who also
helped to found the Human Rights Campaign, the gay lobby that
has tried to stigmatize the Boy Scouts.
If nothing else, the Hormel matter certainly is instructive
about our current cultural divide. Liberals want to make
homosexuality not just a matter of tolerance but essentially
a qualification for office: Oppose a gay nominee and you're
automatically a bigot.
Never mind that Mr. Hormel was also opposed by the U.S.
Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights because he had
pronounced himself amused at the public mockery of the
Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a notorious anti-Catholic
gay group. ``When Senator Tim Hutchinson gave James Hormel
the opportunity to denounce anti-Catholicism, Hormel refused
to do so,'' wrote William Donohue of the Catholic League in
1998. Luxembourg is more than 90% Catholic.
Mr. Hormel claims he was misrepresented, and maybe he was.
But the politics of ``tolerance'' cuts both ways, and there's
no denying that the modern gay-rights agenda has moved beyond
mere peaceful co-existence to mock and stigmatize traditional
religion. Catholics have been a special target because of the
Pope's refusal to bend the church's centuries-old belief that
homosexual acts are sinful. Mr. Hormel's critics were merely
using the kind of identity politics that liberals have used
for years.
The news is that so many Senators are nonetheless lining up
to be Hormel Democrats. It's no accident that both North
Dakota Democrats, the usually hyper-partisan Byron Dorgan and
Kent Conrad, came out early for Mr. Ashcroft. George Bush won
their state by two-to-one. But all of the potential
Democratic presidential candidates seem to be falling into
opposition line: Hillary of course, and even Indiana's Evan
Bayh. Joe Lieberman is still pondering from Mt. Olympus.
Mr. Lieberman might reflect that following the liberal line
didn't help him or his running mate last year. Democrats lost
the White House, despite peace and prosperity, because Middle
America didn't share their cultural values. Lining up against
John Ashcroft won't help win them back.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to respond to an unfair and untrue
statement made on the floor of the Senate about John Ashcroft's work to
combat the practice of racial profiling.
Senator Ashcroft has a good record on the issue of racial profiling.
It was Senator Ashcroft's decision to hold the first-ever congressional
hearing on the topic, a decision that Senator Feingold, who is an
expert on the issue in his own right, appropriately acknowledged during
the confirmation hearings. Senator Feingold reported that Senator
Ashcroft and his staff ``not only permitted, but assisted in a
significant and powerful hearing on racial profiling in the
Constitution subcommittee.''
Those who attempt to downgrade the importance of that hearing have
failed to understand that Senator Ashcroft's motives are genuine.
Senator Ashcroft opposes injustice of all kinds. As he explained in his
opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, ``[f]rom racial profiling
to news of unwarranted strip searches, the list of injustice in America
today is still long. Injustice in America against any individual must
not stand; this is the special charge of the U.S. Department of
Justice.''
Senator Ashcroft made clear that his efforts to combat racial
profiling will continue if he is confirmed as Attorney General. In
response to Senator Feingold's direct question ``will you make racial
profiling a priority of yours?'', John Ashcroft pledged, ``I will make
racial profiling a priority of mine.'' He could not have been more
clear. And he was equally lucid when describing the basis for his
views. He said, ``I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's
unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment.'' These are
powerful words when spoken by a man such as John Ashcroft who is
committed to enforcing the rule of law.
Senator Ashcroft's views on racial profiling are part of his larger
conception of the role of the Department of Justice on racial issues.
Senator Ashcroft has pledged that, if confirmed, ``I would do my best
never to allow a person to suffer solely on the basis of a person's
race.'' He went on to say that ``it is important that the federal
government be leading when it comes to respecting the rights of
individuals and the Constitution. I will do everything I can to make
sure that we lead properly in that respect.'' These are firm assurances
from a man of integrity.
As you can see, Mr. President, it is not only unfair but also
inaccurate to portray Senator Ashcroft as insensitive to the issue of
racial profiling. I hope my comments help to set the record straight.
Mr. President, I would like to correct some misstatements that were
made on the floor of the Senate concerning John Ashcroft's speech at
Bob Jones University. There has been a real attempt here to wage a
``guilt by association'' attack on Senator Ashcroft, and I want to set
the record straight.
John Ashcroft's visit to the school was not controversial when it
occurred in May 1999. But early in 2000--approximately eight months
after John Ashcroft's visit--Bob Jones University became a flash point
during the primary election because opponents of then-Governor George
W. Bush accused Governor Bush of associating with an anti-Catholic
statement that appeared on the University's Internet site.

Following the flap over Bush's visit, John Ashcroft said, ``I didn't
really know they had these positions,'' and ``[f]rankly, I reject the
anti-Catholic position of Bob Jones University categorically.''
Despite having repudiated the offending statement, John Ashcroft
faced a new round of criticism for his appearance after he was
nominated to be Attorney General. The special interest groups aligned
against him attempted to associate John Ashcroft with every form of
bigotry and intolerance they could.
But any controversy over John Ashcroft's speech at Bob Jones
University should have been put to rest by John Ashcroft's testimony at
this confirmation hearings. That's when we finally got the chance to
ask Senator Ashcroft what he thought. And Senator Ashcroft made it
clear that he ``reject[s] any racial intolerance or religious
intolerance that has been associated with[,] or is associated with[,]''
Bob Jones University.
Senator Ashcroft went on to explain that ``[he] want[s] to make it
very clear that [he] reject[s] racial and religious intolerance.'' He
said he does not endorse any bigoted views by virtue of ``having made
an appearance in any faith or any congregation.'' He said, for example,
that he has visited churches which do not ``allow women in certain
roles,'' and that he does not endorse that view either.
Apparently, Ashcroft's answer eliminated any doubt about his personal
views. As Senator Leahy told Senator Ashcroft during the hearing, ``I
made my position very clear yesterday on how I feel about you on any
questions of racial or religious bias. I stated that neither I nor
anybody on this committee would make that claim about you.'' Even
Catholic groups were satisfied. A spokesperson for the Catholic

[[Page S980]]

League said, ``In short, the controversy over Ashcroft is much ado
about nothing as far as the Catholic League is concerned.''
Some outside groups had questioned the meaning of the speech that
Senator Ashcroft gave during his visit to Bob Jones University. Senator
Ashcroft explained during the confirmation hearing that ``the phrase,
`We have no king but Jesus,' was a representation of what colonists
were saying at the time of the American Revolution.'' He said that the
point of his speech was ``the idea that the ultimate authority of the
ultimate idea of freedom in America is not governmentally derived.'' I
don't think anyone in the Senate would take issue with that. It is an
understatement to say that this idea is well-documented in the
Founders' writings.
Some went in search of controversy by asking Senator Ashcroft if he
would go to Bob Jones University again if invited as Attorney General.
He said he would ``speak at places where [he] believes[s] [he] can
unite people and move them in the right direction.'' In saying that, he
contritely explained that his confirmation hearings--``and the prelude
to th[o]se hearings''--taught him to be ``sensitive at a higher level
now than [he] was before, that the attorney general in particular needs
to be careful about what he or she does.'' Senator Ashcroft said that,
if confirmed, he ``would be sensitive to accepting invitations so as to
not allow a presumption to be made that I was endorsing things that
would divide people instead of unite them.'' This answer apparently did
not satisfy some of the committee who have since argued that he should
have pledged never to return to the University.
But as Senator Ashcroft explained at his hearing, it is shortsighted
to make a pledge not to go somewhere just because you disagree with
them. John Ashcroft pointed out that the Bob Jones University has
``abandoned the policy on interracial dating which was offensive''
after that policy became a focus of attention last year. I think John
Ashcroft was contrite about what he learned and correct not to rule out
visiting places where he thinks his presence could be a force for
positive change.
Thank you for the opportunity to correct the misimpressions about
this issue that were unfortunately created on the Senate floor.
Mr. President, I feel compelled to address some of the misperceptions
I fear may have been created by my colleagues in their comments about
several aspects of Senator Ashcroft's record with regard to his role in
antitrust litigation against politically-motivated boycotts and
abortion when he was an elected official in Missouri.
First, several of my colleagues have unfairly criticized Senator
Ashcroft for the lawsuit Senator Ashcroft filed against the National
Organization of Women (NOW) when he was Attorney General of Missouri.
In response to Missouri's decision not to ratify the Equal Rights
Amendment (``ERA''), NOW organized a boycott against Missouri (as well
as other states that failed to ratify the ERA). Pursuant to that
boycott, NOW urged organizations not to hold conventions in Missouri.
In 1978, Missouri, through then-Attorney General Ashcroft, sued NOW in
federal court, alleging that the boycott violated the antitrust laws.
As Senator Ashcroft testified during his confirmation, he filed the
lawsuit because the boycott was hurting the people of Missouri, and he
believed it to be in violation of the antitrust laws. Senator Ashcroft
testified that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the ERA or with
political differences that Senator Ashcroft might have held with NOW.
The decision to file it was purely a legal and economic one. The
boycott hurt Missouri and, in his view, was illegal, and it was his
duty to act on behalf of Missouri and its citizens.
While some have charged this was settled law because a case cited in
an opinion was more than a decade old, the fact that a case is cited in
a decision is no indicator of whether the law of the particular case is
settled. In fact, the legal question at issue--whether the Sherman Act
covers boycotts engaged in with political rather than economic aims--
was acknowledged by all the judges on the 8th Circuit panel to be one
of first impression. With all appellate judges acknowledging the
novelty of the case, I do not know how the argument that the law was
settled can be maintained. The language of the Sherman Act on its face
covered the conduct at issue, and it was well established that it
generally covered boycotts. The court eventually ruled 2 judges to 1
against General Ashcroft, but obviously it was an unanswered question
in the law and could have gone either way. The law is clear now, but it
wasn't then. An Attorney General for a state represents that state, and
like any lawyer, is to zealously defend the rights of those he
represents. So, naturally appeals were made. Not to make an appeal from
an adverse ruling--especially in a case of first impression--would have
departed from normal practice and may have violated his duty to his
client, the people of Missouri. And the fact that the Supreme Court
denied review means little in this case. The Supreme Court often denies
review on cases of first impression to allow the lower courts to
develop the law before it reviews and settles a question to get the
benefit of broader thinking than a single court. It seems odd to
criticize an Attorney General for trying to serve his client's
interest, but I guess the point of John Ashcroft's critics is that
results are what is important, and if your clients' opponent is a group
favored by liberal politicians, serving their needs is more important
than serving your constituents and clients, in this case, citizens of
Missouri, no matter what your normal duty would be. That cannot be what
we expect of either a state or our federal Attorney General.

I would also like to respond to the number of comments that have been
made about Senator Ashcroft's actions in Sermchief v. Gonzales, 660
S.W.2d 683 (Mo. 1983). This case was a declaratory action brought by
nurses working at family planning clinics to permit them to prescribe
contraceptives and other reproductive health materials according to the
same protocols dictated by physicians under the Nursing Practice Act of
1975. The nurses also challenged the constitutionality of the statute.
Attorney General Ashcroft's office was served with the lawsuit as
required by law when any party challenges the constitutionality of a
statute. Attorney General Ashcroft fulfilled his duty to defend the
constitutionality of the statute. The brief his office filed did not
address the proper scope of nursing practices as some have claimed.
The Attorney General's Office also represented the State Board of
Nursing, who was not a party to the case, and filed an amicus brief on
behalf on their behalf urging an interpretation of the statute
consistent with the position taken by the nurses. This is the view that
prevailed in the Missouri Supreme Court. In other words, both of the
Attorney General's briefs supported the constitutionality of the
statute. It was proper for the Attorney General to file briefs on
behalf of parties on either side of the litigation because the
positions taken were not in conflict insofar as they supported
constitutionality of statute. Even if they had been in conflict, the
law recognizes that an Attorney General may take conflicting positions
because he or she is the only lawyer the government has--even when
different government entities cannot agree.
The nurses were concerned about the Nursing Practice Act of 1975, and
whether the term ``professional nursing'' expanded the scope of
authorized nursing practices. The Board of Healing Arts threatened to
order the nurses to show cause why the nurses should not be found
guilty of the unauthorized practice of medicine, and physicians guilty
of ``aiding and abetting.'' The Board of Healing won this argument at
trial. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court and
determined that the services complained of by the Board of Registration
for the Healing Arts did indeed fall within the legislative standard of
``professional nursing'' and there were permissible.
The nurses in question were performing services including breast and
pelvic examinations, laboratory testing of PAP smears, gonorrhea
cultures, and blood serology and providing information about
contraceptives. The trial court, in ruling in favor of the Board,
found, among other things, that the findings derived from pelvic
examinations which the nurses performed to attempt to diagnose the
existence or nonexistence of contraindications to the

[[Page S981]]

use of contraceptives ``require an individual to draw upon education,
judgment and skill based upon knowledge and application of principles
in addition to and beyond biological, physical, social, and nursing
sciences.'' Sermchief, 660 S.W.2d at 686.
It was not unreasonable for the Board to argue that services that
were generally performed by physicians and required the ``education,
judgment and skill'' beyond ``nursing sciences.'' In fact, at trial,
many prominent physicians testified as such. The Supreme Court,
however, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, based upon the legislative
standard that was set at the time. The court relied on the nurses'
professional status to know what their limits were. The Board, in
bringing the case originally, simply didn't feel comfortable relying on
the knowledge of an individual nurse as to what his or her limits were.

Any characterization of Senator Ashcroft's actions as Missouri
Attorney General as an effort to deny health services to rural or low
income patients, is at war with the facts. He was the Attorney General,
and he had an obligation to defend the constitutionality of the
statute. That is what he did, and it was perfectly appropriate.
Finally, I would like to respond to some criticism leveled at Senator
Ashcroft for his support of pro-life legislation while Governor of
Missouri. Even ardent supporters of Roe v. Wade must admit that the
decision is not the model of clarity. Moreover, it did not, contrary to
what many special interest groups claim, authorize abortion on demand.
The decision, while establishing a constitutional right to abortion,
set up a scheme that, in the words of Justice White, left the Supreme
Court to serve as the country's ``ex officio medical board with powers
to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards
throughout the United States.'' Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v.
Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 99 (1976). Thus, even after the Roe decision,
there remained many unanswered questions about the contours of this new
constitutional right. These questions included, for example, issues
about parental consent for minors, minimal standards for abortion
clinics, and whether public facilities or employees can be used to
perform abortions. Many state legislatures--not just Missouri's--sought
to answer these questions left unanswered by Roe.
The statute passed by the Missouri legislature and signed by then-
Governor Ashcroft in 1986 was one of these attempts to define the
parameters of the right to an abortion. Many abortions-rights
extremists forget that the Supreme Court, in its abortion cases, has
consistently held that states have an interest in protecting the health
and safety of its citizens and in reducing the incidence of abortions.
The 1986 Missouri statute sought to do just that, with 20 provisions
covering various issues left unresolved by the Roe decision. The
Supreme Court, in its Webster decision, agreed that many of these
provisions did not infringe on a woman's constitutional right to an
abortion. See Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, et al., 492 U.S.
490, 522 (1989). Throughout this legislative and judicial process, the
State of Missouri--not simply Governor John Ashcroft--followed
established legal rules and procedures in their good faith effort to
balance the right to an abortion with the state's interest in
protecting the health and safety of its citizens. While it may have
asserted its rights to appeal, the State of Missouri and then-Governor
Ashcroft always respected the opinions and orders of the court and the
rules governing litigation. The good faith use of the courts to decide
legal issues is no basis on which to criticize Senator Ashcroft.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, is Senator Leahy going to speak?
Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the distinguished majority leader.

____________________