[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1073-1080]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 IN OPPOSITION TO CONFIRMATION OF SENATOR ASHCROFT FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 3, 2001, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) is 
recognized for 60 minutes.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, it gives me, I want to say great 
pleasure; but I do not know if it is great pleasure that I have as I 
stand here this afternoon. I stand here and hope to be joined by a 
number of my colleagues in opposition to the confirmation of Senator 
John Ashcroft for Attorney General. This special order today will be 
dedicated to opposing that confirmation.
  In the wake of the election calamity in Florida, we find ourselves 
forced into yet another battle to defend the tenets of our 
Constitution, equal protection and fairness for all. This unfortunate 
situation arises only a few weeks after the President-elect promised to 
be a uniter, not a divider; to be the President of all Americans, not 
just the minority who voted for him. Sadly, the nomination of John 
Ashcroft to be this Nation's Attorney General makes those words ring 
hollow.
  If President Bush truly wishes to unite this country, his selection 
of John Ashcroft is a puzzling one. If, on the other hand, his goal is 
to appease a small minority of Americans who view the principles of 
equal protection and fairness for all Americans with disdain, he could 
find no better candidate for Attorney General than John Ashcroft.
  The Ashcroft nomination does nothing to move this country towards 
much-needed healing. In fact, Senator Ashcroft has openly rejected 
those members of his own party who speak of conciliation and compromise 
and has fanatically urged the encroachment of conservatism. Senator 
Ashcroft's public record exhibits an open hostility to the very laws 
and policies that protect the civil rights of all individuals in our 
society. More importantly, Senator Ashcroft has revealed a troubling 
lack of integrity in his attempts to use the power entrusted to him by 
Missouri voters to force his personal agenda into public policy and law 
by whatever means necessary, including personal attacks and distortions 
of truth.
  Sadly, he has extended his proclivity for mischaracterization into 
his Senate confirmation hearings, where he blatantly distorted his own 
record and history in hopes of convincing this Senate that the partisan 
zealot we have come to know has become a rational, fair, public 
servant. We should not be fooled.
  There are a number of reasons to oppose Senator Ashcroft, but his 
appalling record on civil rights alone makes him unqualified for this 
job. No one would entrust their home to a caretaker who has made 
repeated attempts to burn it to the ground. Similarly, it makes no 
sense to place our civil rights laws in the hands of a man who has 
shown an outright hostility to the very notion of civil rights for all.
  For example, Senator Ashcroft voted against the Hate Crimes 
Prevention Act and opposes any form of affirmative action. He eagerly 
accepted an honorary degree from Bob Jones University, vigorously 
opposed the gathering of racial profiling statistics, and aggressively 
fought school desegregation ordered by the Federal courts in Missouri. 
Senator Ashcroft also praised Southern Partisan Magazine, which has 
been called neosegregationist, and called Confederate soldiers 
patriots.
  Many of Senator Ashcroft's supporters, in an attempt to sweep this 
abysmal record under the rug, insist that he should be judged not on 
his veracity and record but solely on his character. However, even if 
we were to disregard this other extensive evidence of his unfitness and 
limit our decision to his character, he badly fails the test as well. 
For example, in the Senate Committee on the Judiciary earlier this 
month, Mr. Ashcroft repeatedly and blatantly misrepresented or evaded 
the facts of his own record. He wants this job so badly that he is 
willing to misstate the truth in order to obtain it.
  Senator Ashcroft's willingness to jettison honesty and integrity to 
achieve his political ends is nothing new. As a member of the Senate 
Committee on the Judiciary, he was well known for viciously attacking 
candidates whose political views did not agree with his extremist 
ideas. He opposed the confirmation of two highly qualified attorneys, 
Marsha Berzon and Richard Paez to the Federal Courts of Appeals. The 
most recent offense was his dishonest and cynical campaign against a 
Federal judicial nomination of a highly qualified African-American 
Supreme Court Judge, Ronnie White. He demonstrated a disturbing lack of 
integrity by distorting the truth and misleading the press and his 
colleagues in the Senate in order to sabotage White's nomination to a 
Federal District Court.
  His history and past behavior of twisting facts and law to conform to

[[Page 1074]]

his own narrow political views further reveals his unfitness to serve 
as this country's top law enforcement official. My legal experience as 
a judge and prosecutor taught me that the law is often not clearly 
defined and in such cases must be interpreted by the person enforcing 
it. That is why I am so concerned about Senator Ashcroft's nomination. 
He said over and over again, in the Senate confirmation hearings, that 
he would be willing to enforce the law when the law was clear and 
convincing. What I am worried about is what happens when the law is not 
clear and convincing.
  As the Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft would be vested with 
significant discretion, having oversight over U.S. attorneys throughout 
these United States. And throughout these United States, they are 
required to follow the policy of the Attorney General. Let me just give 
an example. When Janet Reno served as Attorney General, one of the 
programs she had in place was Trigger Lock. The purpose of Trigger Lock 
was to enforce certain penalties against those who carried guns. This 
was a policy that passed throughout the United States.
  What I worry about is, should Senator Ashcroft become the Attorney 
General, what policies he will put in place that will pass throughout 
the country. What policies will he put in place that might inhibit 
someone because of their sexual preference; that might inhibit someone 
because of their religion; that might inhibit someone because of their 
race; that might inhibit someone as a result of their choice to speak 
on a particular issue.
  Now, when the law is clear, perhaps he will follow the law because he 
knows a billion people will be watching him. But all prosecutors, all 
attorneys general are permitted to make decisions that will never see 
the light of day, and those decisions are the ones we are concerned 
about, where he is vested with discretion, based on his past experience 
and his past service as not only a governor, as an Attorney General, 
but also as a Senator. That is why we are worried. Based on his 
extensive record, I have no confidence that Mr. Ashcroft is capable of 
interpreting our Nation's laws in a way that furthers the best 
interests of the American people rather than his own ideology.
  The Attorney General must have the trust of the American people. 
Clearly, he does not. Recently, an unprecedented nationwide campaign of 
coalitions, representing over 200 national organizations, launched the 
Stop Ashcroft Crusade. Not surprisingly, many of Mr. Ashcroft's 
supporters have attempted to vilify this coalition by incorrectly 
characterizing it as an assembly of marginal left-leaning interest 
groups. However, this coalition represents a broad base of American 
citizens and wide-ranging mainstream issues, including civil and human 
rights, the environment, women's rights and choice, gun control, 
workplace concerns and religious freedom, and cannot be dismissed so 
cavalierly.

                              {time}  1445

  The depth and breadth of opposition to Mr. Ashcroft is best 
exemplified by those who know him best, his own constituency in his 
home State of Missouri, who overwhelmingly voted for a deceased 
candidate rather than endure another 6 years with him as Senator.
  The grim truth is that the record of Senator Ashcroft is not only 
anti-ethical to the necessary virtues of an effective U.S. Attorney 
General, it also demonstrates values and belief in direct conflict with 
the purported philosophy of President Bush.
  Mr. Ashcroft is a divider, not a uniter, and by President Bush's own 
definition, is unqualified to serve as this Nation's Attorney General. 
For this reason, I pray that my colleagues in the Senate will show a 
commitment to true bipartisanship and show a commitment to the people 
of these United States and politely and firmly show Mr. Ashcroft the 
door.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). If the gentlewoman will suspend, 
the Chair would gently remind all Members not to characterize or advise 
the other body on their decision, under the tradition of comity.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Would the Speaker repeat that for me, please.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair would urge all Members not to 
advise the other body as to how they should vote under the rule seeking 
to establish comity and continued cooperation with the other body.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield to my colleague 
the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
to me and I want to thank her for her leadership in bringing this 
special order to the floor on this special day when Mr. Ashcroft is 
indeed before the Senate and in the nomination that the President has 
put.
  I want to speak to the standard that should be used in deciding 
whether a nominee for Attorney General should be approved. I think it 
is only fair to use the same standard that Mr. Ashcroft used, because I 
believe if we use that standard, then it would be necessary to follow 
him in voting against a presidential choice.
  This is what Mr. Ashcroft himself said. I am quoting from the 
transcript of proceedings in the nomination of Bill Lan Lee for 
Assistant Attorney General of the United States, and here is what Mr. 
Ashcroft himself said: ``He has, obviously, the incredibly strong 
capacities to be an advocate, but I think 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 that division.''
  If this is the standard, Mr. Speaker, if the standard set by Mr. 
Ashcroft is to be followed, incredibly strong capacities to be an 
advocate, this is the man with the strongest capacity to be an advocate 
on the issues he espouses, the issues that are at issue in the United 
States Senate, then you need somebody, he says, with a more balanced 
view. Or again, reading from Mr. Ashcroft's own words again in the Bill 
Lan Lee proceedings: ``I don't think that this is an issue that really 
is an issue about the appointments of the President. I think this is an 
issue about the job that should be filled.''
  So Mr. Ashcroft wants us to look at the job that should be filled. So 
I want to look at the job that should be filled. The job that would be 
filled is Attorney General of the United States. To fill that job, one 
has, it seems to me, to meet not only substantive standards such as 
qualifications, but the appearance to be able to do fairness. After 
all, they are the chief prosecutor and they have got to somehow create 
the appearance that, in choosing who to prosecute, in choosing what to 
pursue, they have done so on a fair basis.
  In other words, all of the talk about Mr. Ashcroft's qualifications 
as a lawyer I concede. Because being Attorney General of the United 
States is not only about whether they can do it, but whether they give 
the apparent appearance of fairness in doing it.
  Or, as Mr. Ashcroft said, this is an issue about the job to be 
filled. The job to be filled here is not simply just the kind of job 
that my students at Georgetown University Law School, when they go to a 
law firm, have to fill. That is how they qualify to go to a job when 
they are among the best and brightest students, as they are, in the 
country. To be Attorney General of the United States, there is another 
very important ingredient, and that is, can they be fair in doing it 
and have they led their life so that people will believe that they are 
being fair in doing it.
  I believe it is not appropriate to oppose a nominee because one 
disagrees with him. If that were the case, then I would have to oppose 
any senator probably in the United States Senate who was up for 
Attorney General.
  The reason that I think it fair to oppose Mr. Ashcroft is that he is 
on the fringes of advocacy on issues that are central to his 
jurisdiction as Attorney General of the United States, he is on the 
fringes of advocacy of civil rights, he is on the fringes of advocacy 
of the rights of gays, he is on the fringes of advocacy of the rights 
of women to reproductive freedom.

[[Page 1075]]

  It is not that we oppose him. It is that he has set himself so far on 
the edge of advocacy that he has created doubts and serious doubts 
about his ability to fill the position for which he has been nominated, 
and that is the standard he has set and that is the standard that the 
Senate itself says should be set.
  It is that standard that Mr. Ashcroft has not met. He has not met 
that standard when it came to the way he opposed a voluntary plan for 
integration in a State that had a long history of segregation. He has 
not followed that standard when it came to the way he opposed 
reproductive freedom for women, going well beyond the standard that we 
use even in this House when wanting to bar, outlaw the procedure 
altogether under any and all circumstances.
  What woman can be for that? Well, I tell you this much. Most women in 
the United States oppose that. He has not met that standard when it 
comes to his fairness in judging the qualifications of others, such as 
Judge Ronnie White.
  Having not met that standard, the standard he himself set, I do not 
see how others should be called upon to hold him to a lesser standard. 
I think this is an issue about the job, as Senator Ashcroft said when 
judging whether Bill Lan Lee should become Assistant Attorney General 
for civil rights. I think this is about the job even more so because 
this is about the job of Attorney General of the United States.
  On that score, I can say, having looked to the standard he set, the 
standard that I believe is being used in the Senate of the United 
States as I speak, that John Ashcroft does not meet the qualifications 
to be Attorney General of the United States.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 5 minutes to my 
colleague, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay).
  Mr. CLAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to join my colleagues in the 
Congressional Black Caucus today to voice my deep concerns regarding 
the nomination of John Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United 
States.
  I want to also commend my colleague, the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones) for her leadership with the CBC Task Force on this nomination 
and for scheduling this special order.
  Mr. Speaker, our Constitution states that the President has the right 
to nominate individuals whom he chooses to be in his cabinet. Likewise, 
the Senate has the right and duty to advise and consent on those 
nominations as it sees fit.
  But I am a Congressman from Missouri, a place known as the ``show 
me'' State, and I am not easily convinced. I will wait to see which 
John Ashcroft shows up as Attorney General, the John Ashcroft who 
appeared at the confirmation hearing, or the one who I served with in 
Missouri State government. Because those are two very different men.
  Evidently, former Senator Ashcroft has had a sudden epiphany, one 
which miraculously coincided with his confirmation hearing. He has 
apparently undergone a great conversion on a wide range of issues that 
he has consistently opposed in the past, issues such as civil rights, 
school desegregation, voting rights, reproductive choice, and equal 
protection for all Americans, including those of a different sexual 
orientation.
  But the John Ashcroft that I served with when he was Missouri 
attorney general and Governor was not at the confirmation hearing we 
witnessed.
  I know what John Ashcroft's real record as a public servant has been 
because I was there. His public record shows a pattern of extremism 
that has deprived many children of a quality education. He squandered 
millions of tax dollars and harmed our State by using racially divisive 
political tactics.
  But for now, I will take Senator Ashcroft at his word that as U.S. 
Attorney General, he will enforce all Federal laws vigorously, 
regardless of his personal views and past record.
  I hope that both President Bush and former Senator Ashcroft are 
sincere in their intent to use the law as a healing force in this 
country. And to demonstrate that sincerity, I challenge the President 
and Senator Ashcroft to put their words into action by renominating 
Justice Ronnie White to the Federal bench.
  Americans are still divided following a bitter election, and this 
current nomination process has deepened the divisions across our 
country. Renominating Justice White would provide a powerful act of 
healing. It would show the American people that the new administration 
is serious about bringing our Nation together.
  I urge the President to take advantage of this unique opportunity and 
demonstrate the compassion he so frequently refers to. And I hope that 
former Senator Ashcroft will encourage him to do so.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. 
Jones) for her leadership in her efforts to inform the public with 
regards to the facts as to why so many of us are opposed to the 
appointment of Senator John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United 
States.
  The Attorney General heads this Nation's Department of Justice. 
Extremist views, which Mr. Ashcroft has demonstrated over and over 
again, will not serve the cause of justice.
  It has been said that extremism in defense of liberties is no vice. 
Well, what about extremism which comes at the expense of liberty?
  I believe that the appointment of Mr. Ashcroft really does threaten 
the liberty of women across this country to make fundamental decisions 
about their health and their reproductive lives. For at least three 
times, for example, he stood on the floor of the Senate to vote against 
a woman's right to choose, even in the case of rape, incest, or even 
major injury to the woman.
  This is, after all, a man who not only opposes abortion, he has 
supported legislation that would outlaw many forms of birth control.

                              {time}  1500

  We cannot go back to the days when government controlled such 
essential personal decisions.
  We cannot have an Attorney General who so strongly opposes the law of 
the land which upholds a woman's right to choose. I believe that the 
appointment of Mr. Ashcroft threatens the liberty of minorities across 
this country.
  In his quest for reelection, Mr. Ashcroft besmirched the reputation 
of a respected African American judge in order to win political points. 
He has pointed to the old confederacy for his heroes. We cannot go back 
to those days, either.
  I believe that the appointment of Mr. Ashcroft endangers the rights 
of Americans who face discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation. He opposed and sought to block the appointment of 
Ambassador Hormel, an openly gay and highly qualified nominee, while 
refusing to even meet with him. He has not only openly opposed gay 
rights in employment, he has reportedly trampled them himself in his 
own interviewing tactics. Once again, we cannot go back there. We have 
come too far.
  President Bush has promised us bipartisan cooperation. Yet he has 
nominated as our Nation's chief law enforcement officer a man who 
publicly denounced members of his own party who champion conciliation 
or counsel compromise. This is a man who has really built a career on 
extremism, not on justice. As such, I urge my colleagues in the Senate 
to stand up in defense of all of our liberties and defeat Mr. Ashcroft, 
who will not do justice for many as the head of our Department of 
Justice.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Kirk). The gentlewoman will suspend.
  The Chair will remind the Member that although Members may air their 
views concerning nominees for Cabinet posts, it is not in order to urge 
action on the part of the Senate or to characterize Senate action, in 
order to preserve comity between the two bodies.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson), the chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus.

[[Page 1076]]


  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my 
concern today about the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft and want to 
express my appreciation to the leadership of the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones) to give us this opportunity to simply express our 
concerns.
  Let me say at the outset that, on paper, Mr. Ashcroft is the perfect 
candidate. He was a Member of the Senate, a governor, and an attorney 
general of the State of Missouri. I am told that he is amiable among 
his friends and has a good sense of humor. However, in determining the 
suitability of a nominee to serve as the highest law enforcement 
official of the country, we must take great care and look below the 
surface. We must look to his record and find the truth of his character 
from the actions he has taken at different times. I have examined that 
record and believe that Mr. Ashcroft is an unfortunate choice to head 
the Department of Justice.
  I would not make such a statement lightly. As the New York Times said 
in an editorial which appeared on January 23: ``Any reasonable reading 
of the extensive Judiciary Committee testimonies shows that Mr. 
Ashcroft's zeal has overruled prudence in cases that bear directly on 
issues relevant to the Department of Justice. Mr. Ashcroft's record on 
civil rights marks him as out of the mainstream of American ideals.''
  Poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans favor 
equal rights for all people. Most Americans take pride in the strength 
and courage this country has shown to come from the ugly days of 
segregation and Jim Crow to the America we now know. And while much 
remains to be done, few are willing to return to the bitter days of 
yesteryear. Yet it would seem that Mr. Ashcroft does not share these 
views because Mr. Ashcroft has opposed every major civil rights bill 
during his tenure in the Senate.
  Not only has his opposition to civil rights involved attempting to 
thwart the passage of laws, but it has involved attempting to block 
confirmation of individuals that he thinks might carry out these laws. 
During the Clinton administration, he led the fight against the 
confirmation of Bill Lann Lee as Assistant Attorney General for Civil 
Rights. Despite Mr. Lee's unquestioned and impeccable credentials, Mr. 
Ashcroft objected to Mr. Lee because Mr. Lee had opposed proposition 
209, a California measure that eliminated affirmative action in 
California. Mr. Lee was never confirmed.
  Even more troubling for someone who seeks to be Attorney General, Mr. 
Ashcroft's opposition to civil rights apparently includes blocking 
lawfully issued orders of Federal courts. When Mr. Ashcroft was the 
attorney general for Missouri, he was the State's top lawyer in the key 
stages of a court battle to end separate and unequal education. Twenty-
five years after Brown v. the Board of Education, St. Louis schools 
still needed to come into compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling in 
this landmark case. John Ashcroft blocked the parties in the suit from 
developing a plan for voluntary desegregation and actively obstructed 
implementation of court orders. He filed appeal after appeal. His 
efforts caused unusually harsh criticism from the courts.
  After repeated delays and failure to comply by Mr. Ashcroft, the 
court threatened in March of 1981 to hold the State in contempt. In its 
order, the court order explicitly criticized the State's continual 
delay and failure to comply with court orders. The court stated that 
``the court can only draw one conclusion, the State has as a matter of 
deliberate policy decided to defy the authority of the court.''
  And again in 1981, Ashcroft even opposed a plan by the Reagan 
administration for voluntary desegregation. Even more troubling, in 
1984, he based his gubernatorial primary campaign on his zealous 
opposition to the voluntary school desegregation plans for St. Louis 
schools. This is a troubling intersection of the use of the law for 
political gain.
  Yet all of this could be forgiven if Mr. Ashcroft had demonstrated an 
ability to work with those who differed with him. In the role of 
Attorney General of the United States, one must meet with many people 
with divergent interests and complicated agendas. Yet despite all of 
his experience in politics and government, I am afraid that Mr. 
Ashcroft has not built a reputation as one who seeks compromise and 
understanding.
  For instance, in 1993 when seeking to become chair of the Republican 
National Committee, members of his own party criticized Mr. Ashcroft's 
unwillingness to work cooperatively with those whose views differed 
from his. According to a quote which appeared in the St. Louis Post 
Dispatch on January 10, 1993, a fellow Republican from Missouri, State 
Senator Robert Johnson, said that Ashcroft ``won't take criticism. And 
if you disagree with him, he knocks you out of the loop like you don't 
exist.'' And this is the most troubling thing of all, because, as Mr. 
William Raspberry wrote in the Washington Post, Mr. Ashcroft ``seems 
certain to be a highly divisive force in an administration committed to 
healing across lines of party, ideology and race.''
  While I hope that the Senate takes heed to these concerns, I 
understand that Mr. Ashcroft may succeed in his quest to become 
Attorney General. Let me take this opportunity to say now that if Mr. 
Ashcroft is confirmed, he will have a strong obligation to staff the 
Justice Department with people of demonstrated fairness and integrity 
and to show that they can administer the law evenhandedly. I hope that 
if he is confirmed, he will remember that it was his record of 
divisiveness that has marred his confirmation process. I hope he 
decides to follow President Bush's promise to be a uniter, not a 
divider.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, I say to our Member from Ohio, the 
distinguished judge and prosecutor, for not only leading the issue 
today but for her forthrightness in bringing to this body such 
legislative and judicial experience, prosecutorial experience that 
certainly has helped us, we appreciate her leadership, and I thank her 
very much.
  Today, this afternoon or tomorrow, the United States Senate will vote 
on the next Attorney General. There has been much discussion about 
Senator Ashcroft for the last month now. Extensive hearings have been 
held. Much media has had its coverage. And even in this body as women 
in this Chamber today walked over to the Senate Chamber to stand with 
those opposing his nomination, we come today to a very sad time in 
American history. To be the top lawyer, the number one lawyer in our 
country requires that the person be noble, that they be intelligent, 
that they understand the world in which they live, and that they 
understand that this is a very diverse economy and country that we live 
in. The person should also be sensitive to the needs of the poor, the 
disenfranchised, and those who need a little bit more help from their 
government.
  This is said to be the greatest country in the world. We are 
certainly the richest country in the world and in a position to offer 
more to our citizens than we offer today. The Attorney General being 
selected either today or tomorrow is lacking in many of the qualities 
that I believe are necessary in an Attorney General and the main lawyer 
for our country.
  Forty-six years ago, Brown v. Board of Education was had in court and 
passed, a desegregation case that said open up the schools, 46 years 
ago, so that children could work side by side from different 
nationalities and partake of a quality education. Brown v. Board of 
Education. Senator Ashcroft has not only tested the rightfulness of 
that decision of Brown v. Board of Education which allowed all of 
America's children to receive quality education in integrated 
classrooms but has challenged its validity, and I think that is wrong 
for someone who will be the top lawyer for our country.
  Roe v. Wade just celebrated over 25 years of sound judgment that this 
country has lived under for over 25 years. Senator Ashcroft has 
challenged

[[Page 1077]]

and tested Roe v. Wade on more than one occasion. It is one thing to 
have strong beliefs, and we all live in a great society where we can do 
that and express our differences, but it is quite another on the one 
hand to disqualify Bill Lann Lee as our civil rights expert as he did 
on many occasions because of his views; and here we stand today, hours 
away of nominating a young man who has very, very different views from 
many Americans, and the same barometer is not being used. There is 
something tragically wrong with that.
  It was mentioned earlier that Ambassador Hormel was going for his 
hearing, asking for a hearing before the Senate so that he could be 
confirmed. Ambassador Hormel is a homosexual, and everyone knows that 
and it is all right in our country. We support that. People are what 
they are. God has given them the right to be that. This country 
validates that and not one of us because of race, religion, ethnicity 
or our hetero or homosexual tendencies should keep us from serving our 
country. It has been documented that Senator Ashcroft would not even 
give Ambassador Hormel a hearing. That is wrong.
  So if you talk about from affirmative action to hate crimes, to 
access to the process through hearings so that you can be heard, 
Senator Ashcroft does not meet the test. He should not be confirmed as 
our Attorney General.
  Further, Senator Ashcroft received an honorary degree from Bob Jones 
University, who again lost their tax status on more than one occasion 
because of the policies of that university. Now we have a Senator who 
received an honorary degree from the university, nominated and soon to 
be confirmed as our next Attorney General.
  I think it is unfortunate that President Bush made such a volatile 
announcement and nomination of Senator Ashcroft at this time, at a time 
when we have gone through a very turbulent election, when many 
Americans feel that they were not treated fairly, votes were not 
counted, not allowed to vote, very angry, even as we speak today, that 
we come here today as Members of this House of Representatives, 
standing strong, asking the Senate to take an action that the American 
people would want them to take.

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. Speaker, this is a serious time. It is not too late to withdraw 
that nomination. To put an American citizen there who will enforce the 
laws and not bring their own views into the law. This country cannot 
afford to be fragmented much more.
  This past election demonstrated that we are a great country. Those 
same circumstances in another country would have blood in the street. I 
do not advocate that. We are a country and we settle our differences, 
but let us not fool each other. These are perilous times. These are 
critical times.
  Today it was announced that the surplus is larger than ever before, 
ever even than 6 months ago. Are we going to invest in America's 
schools and children and health centers and seniors? It is important 
that all of this be considered and that as we talk about Senator 
Ashcroft today and whether he will be confirmed or not, look at the 
views of the man. We are a greater country than that. We need people to 
serve who will represent all of the people.
  I do not believe that Senator Ashcroft has the ability, has the 
sensitivity or is able to represent over half of the American 
citizenry.
  Mr. Speaker, today we have an opportunity to say our remarks, to 
share with Senator Ashcroft who, I am told, will be confirmed. We hope 
you listen, Senator. We hope that you will enforce the laws on the 
books and not try to change them. We hope that you will be sensitive to 
civil rights issues, affirmative action, hate crimes. We hope that you 
will allow people hearings who come before your body so that they can 
be rightfully heard in this just society that we live in. I hope you 
are listening, Senator Ashcroft. We are going to be watching you.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Cooksey). The Chair would advise that 
although Members may air their views concerning nominees for Cabinet 
posts, it is not in order to urge action on the part of the Senate or 
to characterize Senate action. That is in acknowledgment of the 
independence of the Senate.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones) has 
18 minutes.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Waters).
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker, after 3 days of confirmation hearings and a 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary vote, I still insist that John 
Ashcroft has definitely not made his case for appointment as U.S. 
Attorney General. Instead, Congress and the public have witnessed a 
confirmation strategy that consists of misleading characterizations, 
factual errors and evasion.
  When convenient during his confirmation hearings, Mr. Ashcroft has 
feigned memory loss as he did in response to inquiries regarding his 
opposition to Judge Margaret McKeown. Yet in a 1997 speech before The 
Heritage Foundation, he referred to her efforts in a lawful ballot 
initiative campaign as sinister and labeled her and her ACLU friends as 
liberal elitists.
  When pressed for answers to persistent inquiries, Mr. Ashcroft 
deferred to a need for consultation with Department of Justice 
officials, as in his response regarding enforcement of Attorney General 
Reno's prohibition of inquiries into the sexual orientation of 
department employees.
  Another tactic used by Mr. Ashcroft when the questions made him 
uncomfortable was to reply, quote, ``I do not think I want to discuss 
that any longer,'' quote/unquote.
  We saw that tactic when he was questioned on his opposition to the 
appointment of Ambassador Hormel, the ambassador to Luxembourg, who was 
subsequently confirmed by an 80 to 11 vote in the Senate. Ambassador 
Hormel's appointment was made while the Senate was in recess due in 
great part to Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to the ambassador's, quote, 
``life-style,'' quote/unquote.
  Mr. Ashcroft said in 1998 during the confirmation process that 
Ambassador Hormel, quote, ``has been a leader in promoting a life-style 
likely to be offensive in the setting to which he will be assigned,'' 
quote/unquote.
  Mr. Ashcroft made the observations, even though Ambassador Hormel had 
received bipartisan support, endorsement by then Secretary of State 
George Schultz, and the government of Luxembourg.
  Under questioning during the recent hearings, Mr. Ashcroft remarked 
easily that he was, quote, ``not prepared to redebate that 
nomination,'' quote/unquote.
  Then there is the, quote, just trust me John Ashcroft, who asks us to 
believe that he can be new, but only if he is confirmed. We saw this 
tactic in all of his responses to questions concerning a woman's right 
to choose. The fact is that in matters of a woman's right to choose, 
freedom of choice, Mr. Ashcroft has exhibited a zealous opposition to 
Roe v. Wade while a State and Federal official. In spite of his career-
long attempt to overturn Roe, he has stated without credibility during 
the hearings that the Roe decision is the settled law of the land, 
which he will enforce. We cannot and should not expect John Ashcroft to 
retreat in his persistent campaign against a woman's right to 
reproductive options.
  Mr. Ashcroft has said he is a man of principle. Let us take a look at 
a few more of his principles in action. As Missouri's attorney general 
and governor, Mr. Ashcroft vigorously opposed voluntary desegregation 
plans submitted by St. Louis city and county school districts. When 
those plans were subsequently approved and ordered by the Federal 
district court, Mr. Ashcroft continued in his opposition, arguing that 
the Court could not implement an intradistrict remedy, although 
voluntary, for an intradistrict violation.
  In at least three appeals, the Supreme Court rejected Mr. Ashcroft's 
argument as often as he made it, agreeing with the lower courts that 
the State was the primary constitutional

[[Page 1078]]

violator. The appeals court also referred to Missouri's history of 
school segregation and reminded Mr. Ashcroft that in the past in order 
to ensure educational apartheid, the State bused suburban black 
students from St. Louis County into the city's black schools in order 
to maintain the dual system.
  Ironically, a statutorily mandated intradistrict scheme to maintain 
segregation was acceptable for years while a voluntary intradistrict 
attempt to eliminate segregation was declared too costly and disruptive 
by Mr. Ashcroft and school desegregation opponents.
  Remaining among the most vicious misrepresentations associated with 
the consideration of Mr. Ashcroft for confirmation is his wholly 
unethical campaign against Judge Ronnie White. The record cannot 
overemphasize the fact that after receiving bipartisan support for a 
Federal judgeship, support that included Missouri Senator Bond, John 
Ashcroft sabotaged Judge White's confirmation after the hearings, the 
committee hearings, at a time when Judge White could not respond to Mr. 
Ashcroft's distortions of his record.
  Judge White's record on capital punishment did not differ appreciably 
from that of any other jurists who were successfully confirmed with Mr. 
Ashcroft's consent and support. In the case of Judge White, deliberate 
misrepresentation, cowardly sabotage, and a double standard were all 
instruments in Mr. Ashcroft's drive to promote his own reelection.
  These are a few of the principles that have in practice guided Mr. 
Ashcroft's actions. These are the principles that speak more loudly 
than any confirmation hearing denials. Questions regarding Mr. 
Ashcroft's record and his fitness to serve as the Nation's top 
prosecutor have not been answered satisfactorily. Accordingly, the 
Nation should not suffer the appointment of Mr. Ashcroft as Attorney 
General. He has demonstrated over and over again that he is unwilling 
to travel a path forward to needed social progress. As guardians of the 
Nation's future, we cannot sit idly by and watch Mr. Ashcroft be 
confirmed without strong opposition, and while we have been encouraged 
and urged not to advocate what should be done about him by the Members, 
I just hope and I just pray that the Members do the right thing. I do 
not need to tell them what to do. He has defined himself very well. I 
think they know what to do. He should not be confirmed.


                             General Leave

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks on the subject of this special order today.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentlewoman from Ohio?
  There was no objection.


                            Points of Order

  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, because of some misunderstanding, I 
would make a point of order and ask unanimous consent to have the time 
extended to allow the people who I have remaining to speak. Can I do 
that?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The request of the gentlewoman from Ohio may 
not be entertained.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. May I inquire of the Speaker why?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under clause 2 of rule XVII, a Member may 
not address the House for longer than 1 hour.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. This is a point of order. I hope I am not using 
up my time. Up until one speaker, before this speaker, the speaker was 
acting on the time; and it was my thought that that was how the time 
operated, sir; and so I wanted to be able to get some additional time 
to allow the rest of the people I have here to speak, especially on an 
issue as important as this confirmation.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair regrets any misunderstanding, but 
here is the practice: A Member who is recognized to control time during 
special orders may yield to colleagues for such amounts of time as she 
may deem appropriate, but may not yield blocks of time to be enforced 
by the Chair. Members regulate the duration of their yielding by 
reclaiming the time when appropriate.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the 
House for 5 minutes under Special Orders.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman may take 
that Special Order after the pending time has expired.
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague, the 
gentlewoman from the great State of Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank very much the 
distinguished gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones), and I thank her for 
her leadership on this issue.
  I thank my colleagues for coming to the floor of this House at a time 
when it might be more comfortable for us to just drift off into the 
distant sunset, but I am always reminded that it is not the test of 
character where one stands in times of comfort and ease but where one 
stands in times of battle and challenge. Though there may be no other 
voices that raise up against the confirmation of the Attorney General 
of the United States, I am proud to stand with those who would speak 
for the voiceless in America, for there are millions of Americans whose 
voices will not be heard when the vote is taken and there is such a 
confirmation.
  My colleagues have chronicled the record and philosophy of this 
nominee, but the real question becomes to answer the question for 
America and for this body. What is the value and the importance of the 
Attorney General and the Department of Justice? It is not a question of 
whether we are recklessly opposing someone because they have 
fundamentally different beliefs than what I have, but the Department of 
Justice is what it symbolizes. It is the refuge for the voiceless and 
the disenfranchised.
  In the 1960s, in the civil rights movement, as Martin Luther King, 
Jr., in the segregated South, it was the Justice Department that came 
riding in to preserve the sanctity of the Union, and for us to be able 
to express the opposition to a segregated and violent America.
  It was the Justice Department and the President of the United States 
that utilized that leadership when it was necessary for the Little Rock 
9 to enter into the high schools so that there could be integration and 
an implementation of Brown v. Topeka in the case that was before the 
Supreme Court. And so the Justice Department is the refuge and the 
Attorney General is the captain.
  If this nominee is confirmed, that captain will steer the ship wrong. 
There will be no refuge for women who under the law have the right to 
utilize Roe v. Wade. There will be no refuge for those of us who pushed 
for desegregation of this Nation. There will be no refuge for millions 
of Americans who were disenfranchised in the last election and question 
whether or not there is support for voting and enforcing the Voter 
Rights Act of 1965.
  Then there will be the question of appointments, the Assistant 
Attorney General for Civil Rights, the protection and understanding of 
the rights of immigrants, respect for secret evidence, a law that was 
passed, realizing that immigrants have rights and that we should not be 
in a position in this Nation to bash people because they are different. 
We can all join in in believing that there should be law and order; but 
at the same time who will enforce the rights not only of the victim, 
which I support, in supporting their rights, but the innocent convicted 
defendant incarcerated, the wrong person, when we talk about using DNA?

                              {time}  1530

  What will be the position of this Attorney General when all of his 
legal background and his public service have been in opposition to 
this?
  If I might just say this: I sat through the hearings and I testified 
with respect to my opposition to this nomination. I cannot suggest to 
the other body what they should do. I can only plead with them on 
behalf of those whose voices will not be heard that if

[[Page 1079]]

there is one place in this country where those who are less than what 
many would want them to be, who are poor, who are downtrodden, who are 
incarcerated, who seek to have laws enforced, if there is anyplace that 
one can go and seek fairness, it has to be in the Department of 
Justice.
  Mr. Speaker, I close with these two points of contention. In those 
hearings, Attorney General-to-be or nominee Ashcroft was asked if he 
followed the law as the Attorney General in Missouri, not whether or 
not he believed or had a philosophy different from any one of us, and, 
of course, he suggested that he did follow the law. But yet, during the 
bitter 10-year legal battle against voluntary desegregation, and I said 
voluntary, where the community came together, he was cited by the 
Federal court and he was criticized, and the language is as follows: 
his continual delay and failure to comply with court orders, and 
concluded that the State has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided 
to defy the authority of a court. That is who my Republican colleagues 
think can follow the law.
  Lastly, when he was asked whether or not he opposed Judge Ronnie 
White for any other reason, he noted that he did not derogate his 
background, but yet Ashcroft, in opposing him, indicated that White, a 
judge that had voted 60 percent with the Ashcroft appointees of the 
State, would use his lifetime appointment to push law in a pro-criminal 
direction, consistent with his own political agenda. When have we ever 
heard that the courts and the judges who take an oath of office have 
done so?
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me to join in with 
my colleagues. The real question is, will we close the doors of justice 
with the confirmation of an individual who has seemingly exemplified 
whatever his beliefs are, questionable vigorousness in enforcing the 
law of the land? Be not afraid to stand up and to suggest that there 
should be another direction for this Nation. I have no fear, and I hope 
the rest of America has none as well.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to oppose the nomination of John 
Ashcroft for Attorney General of the United States. Today, I walked in 
solidarity with fellow women members of the Democratic Caucus to the 
Senate floor to oppose the Ashcroft confirmation. At least fifteen 
Members of the Democratic Women's Caucus participated in this solemn 
protest concerning the confirmation battle. We came together and 
witnessed the debate in the Senate Chamber up close and personal.
  I am here today to speak out not only as a Member of Congress, but as 
a citizen of our diverse and vulnerable nation.
  The Senate is moving perilously close to taking final action on Mr. 
Ashcroft's confirmation. This causes me great anxiety in light of the 
fact that a growing number of Americans are demonstrating in every 
state of the Union against the Ashcroft confirmation.
  Based on Mr. John Ashcroft's voting record of aggressive opposition 
to women's rights, civil rights, and the unfortunate handling of the 
nomination of Judge Ronnie White, the Senate Judiciary Committee and 
its colleagues should vote down his nomination for the sake of unifying 
America. The Attorney General for the United States should support laws 
that protect all of America's people. It is unfortunate that ratings by 
the Christian Coalition, the National Right to Life Committee, and the 
American Conservative Union show that throughout his 6 years in the 
U.S. Senate, John Ashcroft has been a consistent and reliable vote in 
opposing the certified law of the land. I am not questioning Mr. 
Ashcroft's personal probity; I am vigorously questioning his 
suitability for the job for which he has been selected.
  Mr. Ashcroft's record on matters of race has been simply 
disappointing. According to the Washington Times, Ashcroft received a 
grade of ``F'' on each of the last three NAACP report cards because of 
his anti-progressive voting record, having voted to approve only 3 of 
15 legislative issues supported by the NAACP and other civil rights 
groups. This explains why such a broad number of groups are so strongly 
united against his confirmation as the next Attorney General of the 
United States.
  Mr. Ashcroft opposed the approval of Judge Ronnie White to the 
Federal Bench. In 1997, President Clinton nominated Judge White of the 
Missouri Supreme Court to be a United States District Court Judge. At 
the hearings on his nomination in May 1998, Judge White was introduced 
to the Senate Judiciary Committee by Republican Senator Christopher 
Bond, who told the committee that Judge White ``has the necessary 
qualifications and character traits which are required for this most 
important job.'' See Confirmation Hearings on Federal Appointments: 
Hearings Before the Senn. Comm. On the Judicary, 15th Cong., 2d Sess. 
7-8 (1998).
  We all know that John Ashcroft led a campaign to defeat the 
nomination of Missouri's first African-American Supreme Court Justice, 
Judge Ronnie White, to the federal bench. Mr. Ashcroft seriously 
distorted White's record, portraying it as pro criminal, and anti-death 
penalty, and even suggested, according to the London Guardian, that 
``the judge had shown a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' 
Ironically, Judge 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.
  In fact, of these 59 death penalty cases, Judge White was the sole 
dissenter in only three of them. As a matter of fact, three of the 
other Missouri Supreme Court judges, all of whom were appointed by Mr. 
Ashcroft as Governor, voted to reverse death penalty case sentences in 
greater percentage of cases than did Judge White. Ashcroft also failed 
to consider or mention that in at least fifteen death penalty cases 
Missouri Supreme Court Justice, Ronnie White, wrote the majority 
opinion for the court to uphold the death sentence. America owes an 
apology to Judge White and I admire his ability to move forward with 
his life. This is a judicial nominee for which Mr. Ashcroft had no 
substantial reason to oppose--and it is time that America knows the 
facts.
  I took my responsibility in helping shed light on Judge White's 
confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the 17th 
of January of this month with great seriousness. I felt compelled to 
have my voice heard on behalf of Judge White who had never been given 
the chance to defend himself from vicious attacks on his impeccable 
judicial record. More importantly, each Senator and Representative now 
knows that when Judge White's nomination was brought to the Senate 
floor in October 1999, Senator Ashcroft spearheaded a successful party-
line fight to defeat White's confirmation, the first time in 12 years 
(since the vote on Robert Bork) that the full Senate had voted to 
reject a nominee to the Federal bench.
  In contrast to that effort, as former Congressman William L. Clay 
introduced Judge Ronnie White before the Senate Judiciary Committee he 
said the following: ``I might cite one incident that attests to the 
kind of relationship that Judge White has with many, and that is with a 
member of this committee--Senator Ashcroft. When I recommended Judge 
White to the President for nomination and the President nominated him, 
one of the first people that I conferred with was Senator Ashcroft. At 
a later date, he told me that he had appointed six of the seven members 
to the Missouri Supreme Court. Ronnie White was the only one he had not 
appointed. He said he had canvassed the other six, the ones that he 
appointed, and they all spoke very highly of Ronnie White and suggested 
that he would make an outstanding Federal Judge. So I think that this 
is the kind of person we need on the Federal bench.'' Confirmation 
Hearings on Federal Appointments: Hearings before the Sen. Comm. On the 
Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess. 7-8 (1998).
  John Ashcroft, if confirmed would not be a guardian of women's right 
to reproductive choice as provided by the Supreme Court's decision in 
Roe v. Wade. On the contrary, Mr. Ashcroft supports a constitutional 
amendment that would outlaw abortion even in cases of incest and rape 
and that would criminalize several commonly used forms of 
contraception.
  As Missouri attorney general and Governor, and more recently in the 
Senate, he repeatedly used his office as a U.S. Senator to push through 
severe new restrictions on women's reproductive freedom as part of an 
effort to get the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade. It is fair to 
say that many women in America have a right to be concerned because as 
Attorney General, Ashcroft could use the power the Federal Government 
behind new strategies to defeat the right to an abortion in the Supreme 
Court. It is also reasonable to express doubts about whether he would 
fully enforce laws that insure access to abortion clinics by limiting 
violent or obstructive demonstrations by abortion opponents.
  We all look at the Attorney General to ensure even-handed law 
enforcement and protection of our basic constitutional rights: freedom 
of speech, the right to privacy, a woman's right to choose, freedom 
from governmental oppression and other vital functions. We cannot deny 
the Attorney General plays a critical role in bringing the country 
together, bridging racial divides, and inspiring people's confidence in 
their government.

[[Page 1080]]

  Accordingly, as I review the series of questionable acts that can be 
found in Mr. Ashcroft's record as a public servant, I find such action 
by Mr. Ashcroft to be inconsistent with the kind of vision and 
tolerance that the next top law enforcement officer will need to 
exhibit. Mr. Ashcroft's record on desegregation in the State of 
Missouri is one of those examples that makes me truly sad as an 
African-American and I have an obligation to emphasize this very grave 
matter.
  John Ashcroft, as Attorney General and as Governor of the State of 
Missouri consistently opposed efforts to desegregate schools in 
Missouri, which for more than 150 years, had legally sanctioned 
separate and inferior education for blacks.
  Missouri has a long and marked history of systematically 
discriminating against African-Americans in the provision of public 
education. During the years of slavery, the State forbid the education 
of blacks. After the Civil War, Missouri was the most northern state to 
have a constitutional mandate requiring separate schools for blacks and 
whites. This constitutional provision remained in place until 1976. For 
much of its history, Missouri provided vastly inferior services to 
black students.
  After the Supreme Court's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education, the 
Missouri Attorney General's office, rather than ordering the 
dismantling of segregation, simply issued an opinion stating that local 
districts ``may permit'' white and colored children to attend the same 
schools, and could decide for themselves whether they must integrate. 
Local school districts in St. Louis and Kansas City perpetuated 
segregation by manipulating attendance boundaries, drawing 
discriminatory busing plans and building new schools in places to keep 
races apart.
  The now well-known St. Louis case, which was debated in these 
proceedings before the Senate Judiciary Committee, was filed in 1972. 
In brief, St. Louis had adhered to an explicit system of racial 
segregation throughout the 1960s. White students were assigned to 
schools in their neighborhood; black students attended black schools in 
the core of the city. Black students who resided outside the city were 
bused into the black schools in the city. The city had launched no 
effort to integrate; it simply adopted neighborhood school assignment 
plans that maintained racial segregation.
  Senator Ashcroft, then the Attorney General, challenged the 
desegregation plan. He argued that there was no basis for holding the 
State liable and that the State had taken the ``necessary and 
appropriate steps to remove the legal underpinnings of segregated 
schooling as well as affirmatively prohibiting such discrimination.'' 
The courts rejected his attempts; even the U.S. Supreme Court denied 
certiorari.
  In 1983, the city school Board and the 22 suburban districts all 
agreed to a ``unique and compressive'' settlement, implementing a 
voluntary 5-year school desegregation plan for both the city and the 
county. Importantly, the plan was voluntary--it relied on voluntary 
transfers by students rather than so-called ``forced busing.'' The 
district court approved this plan.
  Attorney General Ashcroft, representing the State, was the only one 
that did not join the settlement. He opposed all aspects of the 
settlement. In fact, he sought to have it overturned by the Eighth 
Circuit. The Eighth Circuit upheld most of the provisions of the plan, 
and emphasized that three times over the prior three years, 
specifically held that the State was the primary constitutional 
violator. Can this man be the next Attorney General of the United 
States of America.
  We need a nominee that enforces the civil rights laws of the Nation, 
that brings strength and confidence to the top law enforcement post of 
our great country, and to affirm equal protection and fundamental 
fairness in the United States of America. We owe at least that much to 
the working people of America and all those who believe the United 
States remains an example of basic fairness and justice for all.
  I strongly believe that some of the beliefs of Senator John Ashcroft 
are archaic and obsolete. This country has come so far in improving 
civil rights and fundamental fairness. The confirmation of John 
Ashcroft will set us years back after all the improvements that have 
been made. This would be a travesty.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Payne).
  Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time, and I commend her for calling this Special Order.
  I too rise to express my opposition to the nomination of former 
Senator John Ashcroft, a man who has spoken repeatedly against gun 
control, against a woman's right to choose, against affirmative action, 
against integration of schools, against the Miranda rights of suspects. 
How can we have this person, as our President wants to nominate and has 
nominated, and who opposes a qualified person like Bill Lan Lee, who 
said that even though you are great and I hear what you say, I just do 
not believe you can do what you say; against Frederica Massiah-Jackson 
for Federal judgeship; against Dr. David Satcher, one of the tremendous 
physicians in this country for Surgeon General; against Dr. Foster, 
another candidate for Surgeon General; against Ronnie White, who, in 71 
percent of the cases voted for the death penalty, where Mr. Ashcroft 
voted for another person who only voted for the death penalty 55 
percent, who happened not to be African American.
  Finally, when a person said that receiving a doctorate degree, 
honorary doctorate degree from Bob Jones University, that after he 
swore he was telling the truth, and when he looked into that camera, 
when he was asked about that university, Senator Ashcroft sat in that 
seat and said, in 1999, in June of 1999, that I did not know what Bob 
Jones University stood for, when George Bush went there to campaign and 
McCain went there to campaign, and the whole question of when President 
Bush apologized to the Catholics because he said that he should not 
have gone there because they are antiCatholic, and never said a word 
about the antiblack. But that was our new President that wants to bring 
all people in. I just cannot understand how Senator Ashcroft could put 
his hand on the Bible, put his hand up to God and say, I did not know, 
less than a year ago, what Bob Jones University stood for.
  Mr. Speaker, for those reasons, I do not think he is qualified to be 
the Attorney General of the United States of America.
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker for the 
additional 1 minute. In light of our discussion, very quickly, the 
relief for the minorities over the years have come through the courts. 
This year, we were let down by the United States Supreme Court in their 
decision that ultimately decided the election that allowed President 
Bush to become President. We were then let down by the executive, the 
President, by nominating John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. We need 
the legislature, even though we cannot urge them to vote in any way; 
the Senate, the only remaining branch of government who has not yet 
acted, to stand up for Americans, stand up for minorities, stand up for 
women, stand up for gays and lesbians, and stand up for all Americans, 
and not confirm the nomination of John Ashcroft.

                          ____________________