[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 16 (Tuesday, February 6, 2001)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E106-E107]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          ASHCROFT NOMINATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. MELVIN L. WATT

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 6, 2001

  Mr. WATT of North Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I submit the following 
resolution of the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers regarding 
the nomination of John D. Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United 
States.

North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers Announces Opposition to the 
  Nomination of John D. Ashcroft as Attorney General of United States

       The North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers, founded in 
     1971 and representing over 800 African American Lawyers in 
     North Carolina is dedicated to the pursuit of equal justice 
     for all people. In defense of rights of African Americans and 
     all persons believing in the pursuit of equal justice, we 
     announce our active opposition to the confirmation of John A. 
     Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States. Our 
     opposition is based upon Mr. Ashcroft's demonstrated 
     hostility to ensuring equal justice and access to justice for 
     all Americans.
       The Attorney General is responsible for vigorous 
     enforcement of our nation's civil rights laws--pursuing those 
     laws in a fair, vigorous and consistent manner.
       Ashcroft has opposed appropriately tailored race-conscious 
     measures designed to remedy present and past discrimination. 
     He even opposes programs that are constitutionally 
     permissible under current Supreme Court precedent.
       He repeatedly sponsored legislation to end affirmative 
     action programs in employment, contracting and public 
     programs. He sponsored legislation to end the Department of 
     Transportation's Disadvantaged Minority and Women Business 
     Program. He also sponsored legislation to make provisions 
     similar to California's Proposition 209--which banned 
     affirmative action--a part of federal law.
       He opposed Bill Lann Lee because Mr. Lee expressed support 
     for constitutionally permissible affirmative action 
     programs--applying an ideological litmus test to this 
     nomination as he has with judicial nominations. Ashcroft's 
     efforts helped to prevent a vote before the full United 
     States Senate.
       As Attorney General and then as Governor, Ashcroft 
     vigorously opposed efforts to desegregate St. Louis' public 
     schools. His opposition was so great that the court almost 
     ordered the State in contempt citing ``continual delay and 
     failure to comply'' with a court order to submit a voluntary 
     desegregation plan.
       Governor Ashcroft vetoed legislation that would have 
     allowed private non-profit, civic, religious and political 
     groups to register voters in the City of St. Louis, he later 
     vetoed a bill that would have allowed such registration in 
     all of Missouri.
       During testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
     Ashcroft said that he believed in and supported the 
     President's ideas, which he termed ``affirmative access''--
     already at work in California, Texas and Florida. He calls 
     these programs
       The Attorney General is the gatekeeper to the federal 
     judiciary- playing a key role in whom the President selects 
     for the federal bench.
       Ashcroft has repeatedly blocked the consideration of 
     qualified nominees. His record

[[Page E107]]

     shows that, as a Senator, he has repeatedly used tactics to 
     block and delay votes on qualified women and minorities 
     nominated to the federal courts.
       Senator Ashcroft's decisive role in sabotaging the 
     nomination of a well qualified African American, Judge Ronnie 
     White, to the federal bench points to his disregard for 
     judicial independence and his willingness to use ideological 
     litmus tests in the judicial selection process.
       Ashcroft spearheaded the party-line vote to defeat Judge 
     Ronnie White's confirmation to a federal district court 
     judgeship. He did this by misrepresenting Judge White's 
     record, labeling him pro-criminal because of his death 
     penalty record even though White voted to uphold the death 
     penalty over 70% of the time.
       The Attorney General should have the temperament, 
     objectivity and commitment to fairness necessary to carry the 
     awesome responsibilities of Attorney General.
       Ashcroft's fervent and long-term commitment to his 
     extremist political beliefs call into question his ability to 
     suppress those political beliefs and enforce the 
     constitutional principles with which he so profoundly 
     disagrees. This extremist ideology also raises questions 
     about his objectivity.
       As a member of the Senate he made racially insensitive 
     comments to Southern Partisan magazine that were divisive. 
     Ashcroft applauded the magazine for its ``heritage of doing 
     that, of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, 
     [Stonewall] Jackson, and [Jefferson] Davis.'' Southern 
     Partisan has printed articles stating that African Americans, 
     Hispanics, Asians, and other immigrants have ``no temperament 
     for democracy, never had, [and] never will'' and that these 
     groups have dissipated the nation's ``genetic race pool.''
       He further demonstrated his racial insensitivity when, as a 
     United States Senator from a state with over 500,000 African 
     Americans, he gave the commencement address and received an 
     honorary degree from Bob Jones University, a school known for 
     its racist policies and anti-Catholic bigotry. Although 
     Ashcroft has claimed that he did not know about the policies 
     of the University, he has refused to return the degree. The 
     credibility of his denial is called into question when as 
     governor he declined to appoint a professor to a state 
     judgeship who had made supportive comments of the University 
     in a law review article.
       We are communicating our opposition to Senators Helms and 
     Edwards as well as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. 
     We urge our membership to oppose vigorously this nomination. 
     We join the multitude of organizations opposing this 
     nomination.

     

                          ____________________