[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1130-1173]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



   NOMINATION OF JOHN ASHCROFT TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED 
                           STATES--Continued

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, is 
recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I daresay that each of us has received an enormous 
amount of correspondence and a plethora of phone calls about the 
nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the 
United States.
  The favorable correspondence tends to emphasize support for the 
Senator's policy priorities and appreciation of his reputation for 
honesty and integrity.
  The unfavorable correspondence tends to emphasize concern about the 
Senator's policy priorities and disapproval of the standards that he 
applied as a United States Senator and in previous offices that he 
held, but particularly to the standards he applied with regard to the 
disposition of Presidential nominations.
  Mr. President, I speak today for myself as a Senator from the State 
of West Virginia, as one who has sworn an oath 16 times to support and 
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies 
foreign and domestic.
  I have heard arguments pro and con with respect to this nomination. I 
am not here to argue the case at all. I am here merely to express my 
support for the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of 
the United States. I will not fall out with anyone else who differs 
from my views. As I say, I am not here to debate my views. I know what 
my views are. I am going to state them, and they will be on the record. 
I do not fault anyone else on either side of the aisle or on either 
side of the question. This is for each Senator to resolve in his or her 
own heart and in accordance with his or her own conscience.
  With respect to that provision in the U.S. Constitution, investing in 
the U.S. Senate the prerogative, the right, and the duty of advising 
and consenting to nominations, I find no mandate as to what a standard 
may be. I am not told in that Constitution that I can or cannot apply a 
standard that is ideological in nature. I have no particular guidance 
set forth in that Constitution except exactly what it says. And I am 
confident, without any semblance of doubt, that as far as ability is 
concerned to conduct the office of Attorney General, there can be no 
question about Senator John Ashcroft's ability to conduct that office.
  He has held many offices. He has been a Governor of the State of 
Missouri. He has been a United States Senator. He has been an attorney 
general of the State of Missouri and, as I understand it, he has been 
the chairman--I may not have the title exactly right--

[[Page 1131]]

of the National Association of Attorneys General of the United States. 
These are very important offices. They are high offices. They are 
offices that reflect honor upon the holder thereof.
  To have been selected for these high offices, John Ashcroft must have 
enjoyed the respect and the confidence of the people of Missouri and of 
his colleagues, other Attorneys General throughout the United States.
  I, myself, do consider ideology when I consider a nominee, for this 
office, Attorney General, and in particular for the offices of Federal 
district judgeships or appellate judgeships, and U.S. Supreme Court 
Judgeships; yes, I do. I apply my own standards of ideology, and lay 
them down beside the record, if there be such, of a nominee. And I may 
reach a judgment based on ideology.
  I have no problem with others who want to apply the criterion of 
ideology. I have no problem with those who say it should not be 
applied. This is for each Senator to determine.
  It is our understanding, based on Senator Ashcroft's record, 
certainly based on news reports, and other sources from which we might 
reach a judgment, that Senator Ashcroft is a conservative. I personally 
have no problem with that. I consider myself a conservative in many 
ways; in some ways a liberal.
  This nomination has been heatedly debated. There have been great and 
strong passions exhibited. That is all right. I do not have any problem 
with that. I am glad that Members of the Senate take a matter such as 
this so seriously. We can feel strongly about these things
  I happen to be a Senator who believes that when it comes to judges, 
they ought to be conservative. I think that if there is going to be a 
department of our Government that wishes to be liberal, then that is up 
to the people, if they wish to elect persons with liberal outlooks, 
liberal philosophies, to the U.S. Senate or to the House of 
Representatives--the legislative branch. It is up to the people.
  The Chief Executive may be a liberal; he may be a conservative; or he 
may be both liberal in one instance, conservative in another. Who knows 
what liberal is and what conservative is? The beauty is in the eye of 
the beholder-- in many instances, certainly. But in my own eye, looking 
at Robert Byrd--and who can see Robert Byrd from within?
  There is a poem--``Just stand aside and see yourself go by.'' I try 
to look at myself every now and then, especially as I pass the mirror.

       When you get all you want in your struggle for self
       And the world makes you ``King'' for a day
       Then go to a mirror and look at yourself
       And see what that guy has to say.
       For it isn't your father, or mother, or wife
       Whose judgment upon you must pass
       The fellow whose verdict counts most in your life
       Is the [man looking] back from the glass.

  But as I see myself, I consider myself to be a liberal on economic 
matters, generally; and a conservative on social matters. Newspapers 
indicate that the vehemence of the opposition to this nomination is, in 
a measure, for the purpose of sending a ``shot across the bow'' of the 
Executive, so that in the future when it comes to Supreme Court 
nominations, the President will be very careful not to send up a 
conservative.
  I do not have a very big gun, but my little shot across the bow would 
be: Mr. President, send us conservative judges. That is the one 
department of the Government that I think should be conservative. It 
should not make the laws. It should not consider itself a perpetual and 
traveling constitutional convention. It should construe the 
Constitution and the laws that the legislature makes.
  The President was elected as a conservative. He did not get my vote, 
but he was elected as a conservative. I think that when it comes to the 
appointment of Federal judges, I hope he will nominate conservatives. 
That is what he ought to do. He told the people he was conservative; 
and they should expect that of him.
  But entirely aside from that--and this Senator speaks only for 
himself in this regard--I think appointments to the Federal bench 
should be of a conservative bent. Judges have no business trying to 
make the laws.
  As far as I am concerned, any other Senator may apply his own 
standards and say whatever he wants to. I only have to answer for one 
person, and that is the old boy looking back from the glass when I 
pause in front of the mirror.
  I have heard no Senator indicate opposition to the nominee on the 
basis of the nominee's religion. I have heard none. But there have been 
a few little insinuations in some newspapers, in the columns, to the 
extent that part of the opposition to this nominee may be on the basis 
of his being a Christian, his adhering to the Christian religion.
  Mr. President, I salute the nominee for being someone who has a 
religion. I think more public officials should have a strong religious 
bent, and should be willing to enunciate their faith, whether it be 
Methodist, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, Baptist, whatever. That is fine.
  I am glad that there are people who bring to the realms of government 
a religious faith. We need more of that. One does not need to be driven 
into the closet because he has religious faith. One should not allow 
himself to be driven in the closet. I do not attempt to foist my faith 
on others, but I can listen to any of them when it comes to their 
prayers. I can listen--listen--with respect, and I can hear what they 
say.
  I have a son-in-law who is from Iran. He grew up in a family of 
devout Muslims. Five times a day did my son-in-law's father look toward 
Mecca and pray. I could have no better son-in-law, none better. I am 
proud of him. It does not matter to me what a man's religion is. It 
matters more that he has a religion. It is like the rules of the 
Senate. It does not matter so much what a rule of the Senate is. What 
matters most is that there be a rule to go by.
  In this regard, I remember the beginning days of the Continental 
Congress in 1774. That First Continental Congress met on September 5, 
1774. The next day, one of the members--it may have been Cushing or 
Clark, Cushing of Massachusetts or Clark of New Jersey--stood to his 
feet and moved that there be prayer at the beginning of each session. 
John Jay, who was an orthodox Congregationalist, objected, as did, I 
believe, John Rutledge of South Carolina, objected on the basis that 
this might cause some dissension, some argumentation, so on.
  Whereupon Samuel Adams--the real firebrand of the Revolution, along 
with Patrick Henry--stood to his feet and said: I am no bigot. I can 
hear a prayer by any of them.
  He, too, was a Congregationalist. I could listen to any of them, 
Adams said. ``I move that Mr. Duche, an Episcopalian clergyman, desired 
to rend prayers to the Congress tomorrow morning.''
  I feel the same as did Samuel Adams. I can listen to any of them. We 
all stand before one God, and he will be our judge. Whether I am a 
Methodist or Baptist or Episcopalian or Catholic or Jew won't put me at 
the head of the line. It is my belief in that Creator, the use of my 
talents as he gave them to me, and my own conscience that will count.
  I am for Mr. Ashcroft. I praise him, if he has a religion that he is 
willing to stand up for. I am not suggesting that he is going to use 
that in one way or the other as he has to deal with problems that will 
come before him as Attorney General, but I would much rather believe a 
man who puts his hand on that Bible and swears to support and defend 
the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and 
domestic, I would feel safer believing that that individual will adhere 
to his oath than I will have faith in an individual who has no 
manifestation of religion whatsoever or who has no religion.
  Here is a man who puts his hand on the Bible, the book our fathers 
and mothers read, and swears an oath before Almighty God and man. When 
he says that while he was a Senator he enacted laws but when he becomes 
Attorney General he won't enact laws any longer, he will enforce the 
laws, I should think that it would be cynical not to take that man at 
his word. What else can we demand? A pound of flesh?
  I take him at his word. He is a conservative. I am a conservative. He 
may

[[Page 1132]]

be to my right on some issues. That is neither here nor there. He will 
have sworn that he will uphold, support, and defend the Constitution, 
that he will enforce the law as he found it. I shall believe him.
  I wonder if Hugo Black would be confirmed by the Senate in today's 
political environment. He was confirmed by the United States Senate 
prior to the revelation that he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. 
He had already been confirmed before that revelation appeared in the 
Hearst papers in 1937. That is the year in which I married my wife, 
Erma, 1937. He had already been confirmed.
  But there was an effort to have the Supreme Court reject him after 
that information came to light, but the Supreme Court denied that 
petition. I am sure that in light of his past, had it been known when 
the Senate confirmed him, Hugo Black may never have had the opportunity 
to be the great jurist that he became. So we cannot always look at a 
person's past and make an accurate judgment. And who am I to look at 
anybody's past? Look at my own. Someone has said that no man's past 
will bear looking into. I think it is probably true.
  We are talking here in regard to Mr. Ashcroft's past positions on 
various issues. But when he took those positions, he took them not as 
Attorney General of the United States, not as one who enforces the laws 
of the United States.
  As a legislator now for 54 years, going on 55, I have taken many 
controversial positions on issues. I think I would be constitutionally 
capable of putting aside my opinions, as I have expressed them in the 
past--and many of mine have been very strongly expressed--I would be 
capable, I would like to think, of putting those aside and enforcing 
the laws of the land without fear or favor, hewing to the line, if 
called upon to be the Attorney General of the United States. It was 
never a job I would want. I think Mr. Ashcroft can do that.
  The Constitution merely states that the President shall appoint 
public ministers with the advice and consent of the Senate.
  As I say, this is not a specific standard, nor even a mandate to 
review particular features of the nominee's background or capabilities. 
Rather, we are enjoined to employ our judgment, a faculty which--
however much we may lament it--focuses on different factors in 
considering nominees for different public offices and varies its 
approach in response to the needs of the times. Thus, when it comes to 
our duty to provide advice and consent on Cabinet nominations, we are 
plainly in an area where reasonable minds can differ, not only about 
the criteria, but even about the proper result given particular 
criteria. No amount of pressure politics--and no slickly packaged 
talking points--can alter this fundamental fact.
  I do not subscribe to the view that, barring the taint of criminality 
or dishonesty, the President is entitled to have his nominations 
confirmed. I do not subscribe to that view. That is not what the 
Constitution says. I do subscribe to the view that law enforcement 
officials of good will and ability can separate their policy 
preferences from the performance of their official duties.
  There is a distinct difference between the role of a Senator as the 
drafter of laws and the role of the Attorney General as the enforcer of 
laws. Once Senator Ashcroft places his left hand on the Bible and 
swears to uphold the laws of the United States, he will be required to 
enforce even those laws about which he harbors serious reservations. 
Not only that, but given the fact that John Ashcroft is as I said, is 
reputed to be a deeply religious man.
  I know not whether he is or isn't. I have never been one who has been 
close to Mr. Ashcroft. I never served on any committee with him. My 
conversations with him have been very, very few.
  He and I have not voted alike on many occasions. So I don't come here 
today supporting Mr. Ashcroft because I know him well, or because we 
have been bosom friends, or because we served on committees together, 
or even because he is a U.S. Senator. But I believe that that solemn 
vow will be taken seriously by him.
  I am attempting to discharge my duty under the Constitution. That is 
the way I see it.
  Let me quote Senator Ashcroft's own words on that subject: ``As a man 
of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously,'' he said. ``So, 
when I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God.''
  What more can I ask? Shall I go behind these words and dig up what he 
might have written on this subject or that subject? Those who feel 
differently may do so. But in this case, all things being considered, I 
have reason to believe that when he says he is a man of strong 
religious faith, he means what he says when he takes the oath. I 
believe him.
  During his confirmation hearings, he stated that he understands this 
obligation and fully intends to honor it. For example, he indicated 
that he ``will vigorously enforce and defend the constitutionality'' of 
the law barring harassment of patients entering abortion clinics, 
despite any misgivings he might have about that law.
  I take him at his word. Although, I do not agree with all of Senator 
Ashcroft's views, as I have already indicated, I have no cause to doubt 
Senator Ashcroft's word or his sincerity regarding his fealty to an 
oath he will swear before God and man.
  As far as I am personally concerned, it would be an act of supreme 
arrogance on my part to doubt his intention to honor such an oath. I 
will not prejudge him in such a manner.
  Given Senator Ashcroft's background, the position to which he has 
been nominated, and his assurances to the Senate that he will 
faithfully uphold the laws of the United States, I believe he should be 
confirmed.
  I yield the floor, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, thank you.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot said by my Republican friends and 
others that Senator Ashcroft's nomination is opposed by ``hard left'' 
or ``extremist'' groups who are ``far out of the mainstream'' of 
American politics. I see a pretty broad group here in these extreme or 
out of the mainstream groups. I will read for the Record the names of 
those who oppose this nomination.
  Alliance for Justice, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, 
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American 
Jewish Congress, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, 
Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Baptist Joint Committee, 
California Teachers Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, 
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Friends of the Earth, General Board of 
Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, Handgun Control, 
Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, The Interfaith 
Alliance, Japanese American Citizens League, Justice Policy Institute, 
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Asian Pacific American 
Legal Consortium, National Consumers League, National Council of Jewish 
Women, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National 
Education Association, National Rehabilitation Association, National 
Voting Institute, Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc., Sierra Club, 
United Auto Workers, US Action, Victims Rights Political Action 
Committee, Violence Policy Center, Youth Law Center.
  I ask unanimous consent that this more complete list of the 
organizations and individuals opposing this nomination be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

           Groups Opposed to the Nomination of John Ashcroft

       AIDS Action, AFL-CIO, Alliance for Justice, American 
     Association of University Women, and ACLU.
       American Federation of Teachers, American Federation of 
     State, County and Municipal Employees, American Jewish 
     Congress, Americans for Democratic Action, and Americans 
     United for Separation of Church and State.

[[Page 1133]]

       Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Baptist Joint 
     Committee, Bar Association of San Francisco, California 
     Teachers Association, and Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids.
       Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, Coalition to Stop 
     Gun Violence, Common Cause, Common Sense for Drug Policy 
     Legislative Group, and Democracy 21.
       Earth Justice Legal Defense Fund, Feminist Majority, 
     Friends of the Earth, General Board of Global Ministries of 
     the United Methodist Church, and Handgun Control.
       Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Human 
     Rights Campaign, The Interfaith Alliance, Japanese American 
     Citizens League, and The Justice Policy Institute.
       Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., Lawyers 
     Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Conference 
     on Civil Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense and 
     Educational Fund, and Missouri Legislative Black Caucus.
       Mound City Bar Association, NARAL, NAACP, National Office, 
     NAACP, St. Louis Branch, and NAACP, Mississippi State 
     Conference.
       National Abortion Federation, National Asian Pacific 
     American Legal Consortium, National Asian Pacific American 
     Bar Association, National Association of Criminal Defense 
     Lawyers, and National Black Women's Health Project, Inc.
       National Coalition Minority Businesses, National Consumers 
     League, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of 
     Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and National Education 
     Association.
       National Family Planning and Reproductive Health 
     Association, National Voting Rights Institute, NOW Legal 
     Defense Fund, National Partnership for Women & Families, and 
     National Rehabilitation Association.
       National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care 
     Providers, National Voting Institute, National Women's Law 
     Center, Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc., and People 
     for the American Way.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility, Planned Parenthood, 
     Public Campaign, Rainbow Push Coalition, Religious Coalition 
     for Reproductive Choice, and St. Louis Black Leadership 
     Roundtable.
       Schiller Institute, Sierra Club, Texas Legislative Black 
     Caucus, UAW, US Action, and Victims Rights Political Action 
     Committee.
       Violence Policy Center, Voters for Choice, Wisconsin 
     Legislative Black & Hispanic Caucus, Women's International 
     League for Peace and Freedom, Women's National Democratic 
     Club, and Youth Law Center.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, when the roll is called on the 
nomination of John Ashcroft to Attorney General of the United States, I 
will vote ``no.''
  The position of Attorney General is not comparable to other Cabinet 
positions. As head of the Department of Justice, the Attorney General 
has enormous independent responsibility and authority, neither of which 
is subject directly to direction by the President.
  The Attorney General also has enormous discretion in choosing where 
to use the power to prosecute and when to go to court to assert the 
rights of the People. Historically, the Attorney General is the officer 
who has enforced the Voting Rights Act and the other civil rights laws 
which have transformed our nation for the better in the last half 
century.
  Given the great power which has been lodged in this office, it is 
important that the American people have confidence in the fairness and 
impartiality of the occupant of that office. It is clear to me that 
many in our country lack that confidence in John Ashcroft. His past 
actions and statements raise legitimate concerns about how he would 
carry out the duties of Attorney General. It is those legitimate 
concerns that lead me to oppose his nomination.
  What are those concerns?
  Other Senators have cited actions and statements which they find 
objectionable. I will mention three.
  First, the decision to oppose Judge Ronnie White's nomination to the 
U.S. District Court for Missouri. In my view, the decision to oppose 
Judge Ronnie White was both unfortunate and unfair. Judge White's 
record and views were distorted in the debate on the Senate floor. 
Perhaps even more disturbing was the way in which Senator Ashcroft 
determined to oppose Judge White's nomination. Each of us here in the 
Senate knows that we have ample opportunity to voice objections about 
judicial nominees from our own state long before a nomination ever 
reaches the Senate floor. In the case of Judge White, Senator Ashcroft 
chose to delay serious objection to Judge White until the question came 
before the full Senate for debate. During that debate, Judge White, the 
highest ranking African-American jurist in Missouri, was publicly 
humiliated. This treatment was anything but fair. It was a sad day in 
the United States Senate.
  A second reason for my opposition to Senator Ashcroft's nomination is 
his implacable opposition to the appointment of Bill Lann Lee to head 
up the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department in the previous 
administration. Senator Ashcroft's opposition was clearly based on Mr. 
Lee's support for upholding the nation's laws as they pertain to 
affirmative action. Mr. Lee testified that he would enforce the Supreme 
Court's rulings on affirmative action, including those that restricted 
affirmative action. Senator Ashcroft opposed Mr. Lee's nomination, 
presumably because he feared that Mr. Lee would actually uphold the law 
of the land in that regard.
  The third reason for my vote will be Senator Ashcroft's opposition to 
James Hormel as President Clinton's choice to be Ambassador to 
Luxembourg.
  I have never met Mr. Hormel. I was not involved in the committee 
deliberations on that nomination, but as far as I can determine, Mr. 
Hormel was opposed because of his admission that he is gay. No other 
credible explanation for opposing Mr. Hormel has been offered of which 
I am aware.
  It is my view that the person entrusted with responsibility to fairly 
and evenhandedly administer the law should not be suspected of 
discriminating against any nominee on that basis.
  Other actions and statements could be cited, but I will stop with 
those three. They are, in my view, legitimate concerns, and in my view 
those concerns require a vote against Mr. Ashcroft to be our next 
Attorney General. The position of Attorney General is far too important 
to our Nation. Our Nation is one that needs to be united rather than 
further divided at this point in our history. I do not believe he is 
the right person for this job.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in 
the Record a number of editorials regarding his nomination from the New 
York Times, USA Today, the Akron Beacon Journal, St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Jan. 27, 2001]

                           What Ashcroft Did

                           (By Anthony Lewis)

       Boston.--Even some conservatives are embarrassed now by the 
     way Senator John Ashcroft killed the nomination of Ronnie 
     White to be a federal judge. He told his Republican 
     colleagues that Judge White, of the Missouri Supreme Court, 
     had shown ``a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' It 
     was a baseless smear.
       But it was not just dirty politics. It was dangerous, in a 
     way that casts doubt on Senator Ashcroft's fitness to be 
     attorney general.
       Judge White was attacked by Senator Ashcroft because, in 59 
     capital cases before the Missouri court, he had voted 18 
     times to reverse the death sentence. In 10 of those 18 the 
     court was unanimously for reversal. Senator Ashcroft hit at 
     cases in which Judge White dissented.
       For appraisal of Judge White's record in those cases I rely 
     on Stuart Taylor Jr. of The National Journal, a conservative 
     who is widely respected as a legal analyst. He wrote: ``The 
     two dissents most directly assailed by Ashcroft in fact exude 
     moderation and care in dealing with the tension between 
     crime-fighting and civil liberties.''
       One of the dissents was in a horrifying murder case--the 
     murder, among others, of a sheriff. Mr. Taylor wrote that 
     Judge White's ``conclusion was plausible, debatable, highly 
     unpopular (especially among police) and (for that reason) 
     courageous. For John Ashcroft to call it `pro-criminal' was 
     obscene.''

[[Page 1134]]

       In short, a judge who wrote a thoughtful, reasoned dissent 
     in a murder case was told that it disqualified him for a 
     federal judgeship. Think about what that means for our 
     constitutional system.
       Judicial independence has been a fundamental feature of the 
     American system for 200 years and more. We rely on judges to 
     enforce the Constitution: to protect our liberties. But a 
     judge who does so in a controversial case is on notice from 
     John Ashcroft that he may be punished. The judge must reject 
     the constitutional claim, however meritorious, or face a 
     malicious smear.
       There is a slimy feel to Senator Ashcroft's behavior with 
     Judge White. One of the Republicans who voted against the 
     judge at Senator Ashcroft's urging, Arlen Specter of 
     Pennsylvania, told Judge White the other day, ``the Senate 
     owes you an apology.'' Commentators have urged Senator 
     Ashcroft to apologize, but he has refused.
       That same sense of slipperiness is evident in another 
     matter: Senator Ashcroft's role in blocking the nomination of 
     James Hormel to be ambassador to Luxembourg in 1998. Mr. 
     Hormel is gay. Senator Ashcroft explaining his opposition, 
     said Mr. Hormel ``has been a leader in promoting a 
     lifestyle,'' and that was ``likely to be offensive'' in 
     Luxembourg.
       But 10 days ago, when Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat of 
     Vermont, asked whether he had opposed Mr. Hormel because he 
     is gay, Senator Ashcroft replied, ``I did not.'' Why, then, 
     had he opposed the nomination? Senator Leahy asked.
       ``Well frankly,'' Senator Ashcroft replied, ``I had known 
     Mr. Hormel for a long time. He had recruited me, when I was a 
     student in college, to go to the University of Chicago Law 
     School [where Mr. Hormel was then an assistant dean]. . . . I 
     made a judgment that it would be ill advised to make him an 
     ambassador based on the totality of the record.''
       After that testimony, Mr. Hormel wrote Senator Leahy that 
     he had not ``recruited'' Mr. Ashcroft or anyone to Chicago, 
     which needed no recruiting; that he could recall no personal 
     conversation with Mr. Ashcroft then and had not seen him for 
     nearly 34 years. He added that he had asked to talk with 
     Senator Ashcroft in 1998 about the Luxembourg nomination but 
     had gotten no response.
       Trying now to appear as someone who will act equitably to 
     all, Senator Ashcroft was not man enough to admit that he had 
     opposed Mr. Hormel because of his sexual orientation. He 
     resorted instead to the false suggestion that he was well 
     acquainted with Mr. Hormel over decades and his ``record'' 
     was bad.
       Supporters of Senator Ashcroft say it is improper to object 
     to him because of his ideolgy--a president should be free to 
     have cabinet members of whatever ideology he chooses. Even 
     with the greatest latitude for the cabinet, Senator 
     Ashcroft's extreme-right politics make him a dubious choice 
     for attorney general. But what makes him, finally, unfit for 
     the job is that, in Stuart Taylor's words, ``A character 
     assassin should not be attorney general.''
                                  ____


                  [From the USA Today, Jan. 26, 2001]

             Ashcroft Rights Record Bears Careful Watching


       our view: his testimony said one thing; his record another

       When Senate Democrats forced postponement of a vote 
     Wednesday on a confirmation of John Ashcroft, it was less a 
     victory than a delay of the inevitable. Ashcroft will be 
     attorney general. But whether Ashcroft will perform that 
     office's most vital role--protecting citizens against abuses 
     of power they can't combat themselves--remains very much in 
     doubt.
       History has shown this to be the most lasting 
     accomplishment of many attorneys general. Herbert Brownell 
     Jr., who served Dwight D. Eisenhower, advised federal 
     intervention when the doors to a Little Rock school were 
     barred to the first black students. As John F. Kennedy's 
     attorney general, Robert Kennedy led the government's fight 
     against racial violence in the South. And most recently, 
     Janet Reno worked to assure women their constitutional right 
     to an abortion free from threat or violence.
       There will be quick and ample opportunity for a confirmed 
     Ashcroft to show such leadership on everything from voting to 
     abortion rights. But the troubling questions remain: Will the 
     nation get the man of measured views portrayed at his recent 
     confirmation hearings? Or the ferocious ideologue who served 
     in the Senate and as Missouri's attorney general and 
     governor?
       Ashcroft said all of the right things about being willing 
     to uphold the law. But grudgingly upholding it and actively 
     fighting for it are very different. Ashcroft's long public 
     record raises questions about his commitment, which were 
     enhanced at hearings last week when he distorted, evaded and 
     strained credulity in key areas, particularly civil rights:
       Fighting integration. Ashcroft has shown no inclination to 
     fight for civil rights and indeed battled for years against a 
     voluntary St. Louis busing plan that grew out of a lengthy 
     court case. Assertions at last week's hearings that he favors 
     integration were undercut when he twisted his own record.
       Ashcroft told senators that Missouri was not a party to the 
     desegregation lawsuit, that it was ``found guilty of no 
     wrong'' and that when ``the court made an order, I followed'' 
     it. All distortions. The state was sued in 1977, Ashcroft's 
     first full year as attorney general. Judges repeatedly found 
     state officials liable, once calling them ``primary 
     constitutional wrongdoers.'' A federal judge threatened 
     contempt proceedings against the state for defying orders. 
     And in 1984, another judge wrote, ``if it were not for the 
     state of Missouri and its feckless appeals, perhaps none of 
     us would be here.''
       Meanwhile, according to news accounts, Ashcroft rode the 
     case to higher office: He bragged about his unbridled 
     opposition and the threatened contempt citation. And he ran a 
     scathing TV ad suggesting that a GOP primary opponent was too 
     soft on busing.
       Insensitivity on race. Ashcroft's Missouri history doesn't 
     mean he's an overt racist. Money was at issue as well as 
     integration in the St. Louis case. But he certainly seems 
     indifferent to minority concerns. Given ample opportunity to 
     explain his acceptance of an honorary degree from Bob Jones 
     University, a bastion of racial bias, and his praise for a 
     neo-Confederate magazine, Ashcroft offered limp evasions. He 
     ``should do more due diligence'' on the magazine, he said, 
     and he'll continue to speak at places where he can ``unite 
     people.'' That doesn't sound like a man who would use the 
     power of his office to fight racial bias.
       Ideology over justice. Ashcroft, who ferociously opposed 
     several Clinton nominees with whom he differed ideologically, 
     displayed no better sense of fairness even as he sought 
     Senate approval.
       He repeated his harsh attack on an African-American 
     Missouri Supreme Court judge, whom he had labeled ``pro-
     criminal.'' Ashcroft torpedoed the judge's 1999 nomination to 
     the federal bench even though the judge voted to uphold 70% 
     of the death sentences he reviewed. Also, Ashcroft evaded 
     specific questions about opposition to Clinton nominee James 
     Hormel as ambassador to Luxembourg. According to news 
     accounts, Ashcroft criticized Hormel, a gay businessman, for 
     supporting ``the gay lifestyle.''
       Presidents get, and in most cases deserve, wide latitude to 
     pick a top team that reflects their philosophy, but that 
     comes with a price: They bear responsibility for their 
     appointees' actions. President Bush, who can't afford to 
     offend minority voters by abandoning civil rights, may hold 
     tight rein on the Justice Department. Moreover, much will 
     depend on those named to key jobs just below attorney 
     general, particularly the department's civil rights chief. 
     Those nominees deserve particular scrutiny.
       Ashcroft himself faces several early tests of his 
     commitment to fairness. He'll decide whether the U.S. 
     government pursues allegations of voter discrimination in 
     Florida in the presidential election. He'll help determine 
     whether race has been used wrongly to draw new congressional 
     districts nationwide. He'll play a major role in picking new 
     federal judges and potentially Supreme Court justices. And 
     he'll influence the nation's stand on future restrictions on 
     abortion and on the use of race in government hiring and 
     college admissions.
       If Ashcroft indulges ideology over fairness, Bush will 
     surely pay the price. But so, too, would Americans who most 
     need the law's protection. That would be the real tragedy.
                                  ____


             [From the Akron Beacon Journal, Jan. 24, 2001]

  The President's Man--The Ugly Story of the Ronnie White Nomination 
      Reveals What a Disappointing Choice George W. Bush Has Made

       Trent Lott has declared that John Ashcroft will easily win 
     confirmation as attorney general. The Senate Judiciary 
     Committee was expected to vote today. That has been 
     postponed. Still, the forecast of the Senate majority leader 
     will likely prove true in a week or two. A majority of 
     senators will consent to the choice of George W. Bush.
       A president deserves to surround himself with Cabinet 
     officers and advisers in whom he has confidence. That is part 
     of even the slenderest mandate a president may win. It 
     ensures that responsibility for an administration falls on 
     the person who occupies the Oval Office.
       Those who've described the confirmation hearings on the 
     Ashcroft nomination as among the toughest ever forget the 
     raucous sessions over Clarence Thomas and Robert Bork, to 
     name just two. The politics involved have been plain. The 
     president hoped to reassure arch conservatives with his 
     choice. Liberal interest groups have kept their own lists, 
     noting the performance of Democratic allies in the Senate.
       All of the clatter might have been dismissed as business as 
     usual until Ronnie White, the first black man to sit on the 
     Missouri Supreme Court, testified at the confirmation 
     hearing. Bill Clinton appointed White to a position on the 
     federal district court. In 1999, Sen. Ashcroft, a fellow 
     Missourian, almost singlehandedly defeated the White 
     nomination, and the way he did so raises questions about his 
     judgment.
       Ashcroft misled his colleagues. He rallied law enforcement 
     organizations to oppose the White nominations, all the while 
     leaving the

[[Page 1135]]

     impression they had come forward on their own. He grossly 
     distorted the White record, describing the judge as ``pro-
     criminal'' and ``with a tremendous bent toward criminal 
     activity.'' He painted the portrait of a judge determined to 
     reverse death sentences.
       In truth, White voted to uphold the death penalty in 41 of 
     59 cases before the Missouri high court. He sided with the 
     majority in 53 of those cases. Ashcroft defended his 
     opposition last week, arguing that he considered the 
     ``totality'' of the judge's record. If anything, that record, 
     as White quietly and powerfully made obvious, has reflected 
     sound reasoning and a dedication to the law (as many police 
     groups acknowledge).
       Sen. Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, felt the 
     duty to apologize to White for the way he had been treated. 
     The judge framed the issue of Ashcroft's nomination: ``The 
     question for the Senate is whether these misrepresentations 
     are consistent with the fair play and justice that you all 
     would require of the U.S. attorney general.''
       The White nomination doesn't tell the entire story of John 
     Ashcroft. As a former state attorney general, governor and 
     senator, he is highly qualified to lead the Department of 
     Justice. He has governed from the center and with integrity, 
     enforcing the law whether he has agreed with its direction or 
     not.
       His zealotry has also been front and center. He has yet to 
     explain clearly his opposition to James Hormel to be 
     ambassador to Luxembourg, except to suggest that he was 
     offended because the nominee was gay. He persisted in playing 
     racial politics with a lengthy school desegregation case in 
     St. Louis.
       The Ashcroft record raises the question: Why didn't George 
     W. Bush nominate someone else to be attorney general, someone 
     who better reflected the themes of his inaugural address, 
     conservative, yes, but far less polarizing and tempted by 
     expediency? Fair play? Justice? John Ashcroft is the 
     president's man.
                                  ____


           [From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 25, 2001]

                         A Question of Fitness


                            attorney general

       John D. Ashcroft has spent the better part of his political 
     career at odds with core values of the Constitution--
     equality, religious freedom, judicial independence and 
     individual autonomy. Now he is nominated to be the people's 
     guardian of those values. The conflict between his record and 
     the duties of the office raises serious questions as to 
     whether John Ashcroft should be confirmed as attorney 
     general.
       Disagreeing with Mr. Ashcroft is not reason enough to 
     oppose him. Presidents are entitled, generally, to their pick 
     of Cabinet members. If Mr. Ashcroft were the nominee for 
     secretary of agriculture there would be no problem. But the 
     attorney general vets federal judges, enforces civil rights 
     laws, safeguards the reproductive rights of women and 
     determines the legal position of the United States.
       Can Mr. Ashcroft fairly vet federal judges when he believes 
     the judiciary is full of ``renegade judges'' who have created 
     a ``judicial tyranny'' where courts are ``nurseries for 
     vice?'' Can he guard judicial independence when he has 
     repeatedly denied judgeships for political reasons? Can he 
     enforce the civil rights laws when he has doggedly fought 
     school desegregation, affirmative action and gay rights? Can 
     he protect women seeking abortions when he considers abortion 
     murder?
       John Ashcroft is indisputably a man of principle. The 
     problem is those principles put him at odds with the 
     Constitution, with contemporary notions of equality and with 
     the mainstream of the American public.


                         judicial independence

       Judicial independence is the rock that anchors our 
     judiciary. But Mr. Ashcroft has undermined independence with 
     his attacks on judicial nominees.
       Mr. Ashcroft's hostility to judicial independence is an 
     important lesson of the much-told story about his opposition 
     to Ronnie White as a federal judge. Mr. Ashcroft may have 
     been motivated by a feud with Mr. White over abortion policy. 
     But by basing his attack on Judge White's death penalty 
     decisions, Mr. Ashcroft sent a chill through the ranks of 
     state judges hoping to be promoted to the federal bench. Mr. 
     Ashcroft said Mr. White was ``pro-criminal'' because he had 
     voted to overturn death sentences. In fact, Mr. White had 
     upheld 35 of the 55 death sentences.
       Mr. Ashcroft focused on Judge White's lone dissent to the 
     conviction of James R. Johnson in the gruesome murder of a 
     sheriff, two sheriff's deputies and a sheriff's wife. Judge 
     White spoke of his ``horror at this carnage'' and said 
     Johnson ``deserved to die'' if he was not insane. But he 
     concluded that Johnson's lawyer was so incompetent that he 
     had not received effective counsel.
       A lone dissent in the case that arouses such public passion 
     is the essence of judicial independence. Charles Blackmar, a 
     retired Supreme Court judge, called Mr. Ashcroft's attack 
     ``tampering with the judiciary.''
       Mr. White is not a perfect man, nor is he the nation's 
     keenest jurist. But he upheld the highest values of a judge 
     in his dissent. Will Mr. Ashcroft reject for the federal 
     bench those judges with the temerity to overturn a death 
     sentence?
       Mr. Ashcroft's record in Missouri raises similar questions. 
     Judicial nominees say that Mr. Ashcroft asked them their 
     views about abortion before deciding whether to nominate 
     them.


                              civil rights

       Mr. Bush says that Mr. Ashcroft ``has a strong civil rights 
     record.'' As evidence he cites Mr. Ashcroft's appointment of 
     eight African-Americans to Missouri judgeships, a past 
     commendation from the Mound City Bar Association, an 
     endorsement by the Limelight newspaper, his support of 
     Lincoln University and his signing of bills honoring Martin 
     Luther King and establishing Scott Joplin's home as a 
     historic site.
       The appointment of eight black judges is a substantive 
     accomplishment. The rest is resume padding. Mr. Ashcroft was 
     only marginally involved in the Scott Joplin house. The 
     Limelight is a free, marginal publication, by no means the 
     largest or most influential African-American newspaper in St. 
     Louis. The Mound City Bar Association, a black lawyers' 
     group, does not support Mr. Ashcroft because of the 
     ``insidious'' way he killed Mr. White's nomination.
       The actual Ashcroft civil rights record is weak and 
     regressive. As state attorney general he denied that the St. 
     Louis schools were segregated. He lobbied members of the 
     Reagan Civil Rights Division to switch sides in the St. Louis 
     school desegregation case, and eventually became the 
     desegregation plan's chief opponent.
       That plan offered responsible politicians the chance to 
     support phased, voluntary desegregation. But Mr. Ashcroft 
     insisted on calling it ``mandatory busing'' and leveled a 
     devastating anti-busing TV ad at his opponents in the 1984 
     governor's race. U.S. District Judge William L. Hungate 
     summed up Mr. Ashcroft's behavior as ``feckless,'' saying he 
     ``voluntarily rode (the desegregation) bus to political 
     prominence.''
       In 1997 Mr. Ashcroft led the opposition to Bill Lann Lee, 
     the Asian-American head of the Civil Rights Division. First, 
     he distorted Mr. Lee's position on affirmative action, saying 
     he favored quotas. Then, he said Mr. Lee should be rejected 
     for holding a position at odds with the Supreme Court's, when 
     in fact Mr. Lee favored affirmative action in limited cases 
     where the Supreme Court said it could be used.
       In 1999 Mr. Ashcroft accepted an honorary degree from Bob 
     Jones University, a fundamentalist Christian college that 
     banned interracial dating until last March. Mr. Ashcroft's 
     claim that he did not know about the university's 
     discriminatory policies stretches credulity. The college's 
     tax exempt status was a huge controversy during the Reagan 
     administration.
       Mr. Ashcroft's civil rights record raises serious doubts 
     about his commitment to ``equal protection'' under the law--a 
     seed of liberty scarified by the flames of the Civil War and 
     brought to fruition by the civil rights movement.


                     women and reproductive freedom

       Mr. Bush says Mr. Ashcroft ``has a solid record'' on 
     women's issues, citing his appointment of Ann Covington to 
     the Missouri Supreme Court and his support for money to 
     combat violence against women.
       But the Women's Political Caucus ranked Mr. Ashcroft last 
     in the nation for appointing women while he was governor of 
     Missouri. As Missouri's attorney general, he opposed the 
     Equal Rights Amendment. When the National Organization for 
     Women boycotted Missouri for opposing the amendment, he 
     stretched antitrust laws to sue the group.
       In every office that he has held, Mr. Ashcroft has fought 
     abortion. He supported a Human Life Amendment even before Roe 
     v. Wade. In his view, Roe and its ``illegitimate progeny have 
     occasioned the slaughter of 35 million innocents.''
       As Missouri's attorney general, he personally sought to 
     limit abortion in an argument to the Supreme Court. As 
     governor, he signed the law that led to the 1989 Supreme 
     Court decision that came within one vote of overturning Roe. 
     Mr. Ashcroft has said his top priority is the Human Life 
     Amendment; it would only allow an abortion to save the life 
     of the mother. There would be no exception for rape or 
     incest. Nor could states pass laws permitting abortion. Its 
     tenet that life begins at conception raises questions about 
     the legality of birth control pills, IUDs and the abortion 
     drug RU-486, which Mr. Bush may also seek to restrict.
       Mr. Ashcroft has supported a partial birth abortion bill 
     that does not include an exception for the health of the 
     mother, even though the Supreme Court says that exception is 
     required.
       Mr. Bush says he does not think the nation is ``ready'' to 
     overturn Roe and says he will focus on bills such as one 
     outlawing partial birth abortion. Mr. Bush and Mr. Ashcroft 
     have also said they will uphold the law protecting women's 
     access to abortion clinics. But Mr. Ashcroft would have ample 
     room as attorney general to advocate positions that would 
     undermine Roe. And he could help pick Supreme Court justices 
     who would read it out of the Constitution.


                           religious freedom

       Organized prayer in the public schools is unconstitutional. 
     The First Amendment says

[[Page 1136]]

     the government can't tell us when or how to worship. Yet Mr. 
     Ashcroft has long supported organized school prayer. He also 
     supports school vouchers, as does Mr. Bush, that would direct 
     large sums of public money to church schools. As attorney 
     general, Mr. Ashcroft would have the lead role in developing 
     the administration's legal arguments in favor of vouchers. 
     His opposition to four decades of Supreme Court decisions 
     raises questions as to whether he believes in the boundary 
     between church and state.
       Perhaps, in several hours of testimony before the Senate 
     Judiciary Committee this week, Mr. Ashcroft can explain why 
     the nation should not feel uneasy with his stewardship of 
     values and principles at war with his own. Perhaps he can 
     reassure the American people that he will enforce principles 
     he has spent a quarter of a century--his entire career in 
     public life--fighting. But how could a man swear to uphold 
     constitutional values he rejects, without betraying his own 
     core beliefs? And who would place his trust in a man willing 
     to do so?
       Mr. Ashcroft should certainly have a chance to explain how. 
     But if Mr. Bush wanted a uniter, not a divider, he has the 
     wrong man at Justice.
                                  ____


           [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Jan. 24, 2001]

  Ashcroft: Still No--Senate Hearings Don't Alter the Case Against Him

       The Senate Judiciary Committee could vote as early as today 
     on the nomination of former Missouri Sen. John Ashcroft to be 
     U.S. attorney general. Before last week's hearings by the 
     committee, the Post-Gazette suggested that Mr. Ashcroft was 
     the wrong man for the job. Nothing that transpired in the 
     hearings changed our view.
       It is true that Mr. Ashcroft, who was nominated by 
     President Bush as a gesture to religious conservatives, 
     assured senators he would enforce laws he didn't agree with. 
     He even made a specific commitment not to seek a reversal of 
     Supreme Court decisions legalizing abortion, which he called 
     ``settled law.''
       Almost four years ago, in a lecture to the Heritage 
     Foundation, Mr. Ashcroft had a different description of the 
     high court's abortion rulings. Referring to a 1992 decision 
     reaffirming Roe vs. Wade, he complained that in that ruling 
     ``the Supreme Court challenged God's ability to mark when 
     life begins and ends.'' In the same lecture, he echoed a 
     familiar conservative critique of what he called ``appalling 
     judicial activism.''
       As we observed before, the question is not whether Mr. 
     Ashcroft can put aside his history of being an extreme critic 
     of the federal courts and of some of the statutes and court 
     decisions he will have to enforce. The question is why the 
     Senate should force him to perform the intellectual 
     contortions that transformation would require.
       In raw political terms, it made sense for George W. Bush, 
     who received significant support from the religious right in 
     his election campaign, to make what one of his aides called a 
     ``message appointment'' that would please that constituency. 
     Senators who see the world differently--like Pennsylvania's 
     Arlen Specter--are under no obligation to follow suit by 
     confirming Mr. Ashcroft.
       Yet Mr. Specter went on record early saying he would 
     support Mr. Ashcroft ``unless something extraordinary'' 
     developed in the confirmation hearings. Predictably, no such 
     ``smoking gun'' materialized. Moreover, the witness Ashcroft 
     opponents had most counted on, Missouri Supreme Court Judge 
     Ronnie White, while eloquent, was in some ways a 
     disappointment. Judge White, an African American, declined an 
     opportunity to impute racism to then-Sen. Ashcroft's 
     disgraceful derailment of his nomination to the federal 
     bench.
       But the issue wasn't whether Mr. Ashcroft is a racist. It 
     was that he unfairly distorted Judge White's record by 
     branding him as ``pro-criminal.'' That charge is more 
     understandable in the context of Mr. Ashcroft's general 
     attitude toward judges he considers appalling activists and 
     subverters of the divine will.
       There is no need to impugn Mr. Ashcroft's integrity or his 
     legal skills to oppose his nomination. Unlike other Cabinet 
     officers, the attorney general is beholden not just to the 
     president who appoints him but also to a body of law that, in 
     many respects, is uncongenial to John Ashcroft but vital to 
     women, minorities and other Americans who find his 
     demonization of the courts bizarre.
       It was symbolism that led President Bush to nominate Mr. 
     Ashcroft; senators who are uncomfortable with that 
     symbolism--Arlen Specter among them, we hope--should reject 
     the nomination.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since we have a lull, I will take a few 
moments to make some points I think need to be made in light of some of 
the statements that have been made. We have been placing matters in the 
Record all day, and hopefully people will read the Record and realize 
some of the arguments that have been made are not only inconsequential 
but really not right.
  Let me rise today to address some of the most common criticisms 
directed against Senator Ashcroft.
  Certain allegations have surfaced again and again, and they 
misrepresent Senator Ashcroft's record and personal character. I will 
address some of the most invidious of these charges.
  The primary criticism cited by my colleagues in opposition to Senator 
Ashcroft are his involvement with school desegregation and his actions 
taken against the nominations of Ronnie White and Bill Lann Lee.
  First, let me address the criticisms made against Senator Ashcroft's 
role in the school desegregation cases in St. Louis and Kansas City. 
There has been a significant distortion of his role in these cases and 
there are some things that I would like to make clear.
  First, John Ashcroft supports integration. He is not against 
desegregation and said so repeatedly during the four days of hearings 
and in response to numerous written questions on the subject. Senator 
Ashcroft testified, ``I have always opposed segregation. I have never 
opposed integration. I believe that segregation is inconsistent with 
the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection. I supported 
integrating the schools.'' Senator Ashcroft is deeply committed to 
civil rights and has stated that he intends to make this one of his top 
priorities if confirmed as Attorney General.
  Second, all of Senator Ashcroft's actions with regard to 
desegregation occurred in his role as attorney general, as the legal 
representative of the State of Missouri. As the State attorney general 
he was required to defend the interest of the State, his client. The 
State opposed voluntary desegregation because it would lead to 
incredible costs for the State--estimates put the total cost of 
desegregation at an incredible $1.8 billion to the State. To put this 
in perspective, Missouri's fiscal year 2001 budget is $17 billion. At 
that time it was much less. In other words, he wanted to prevent, as 
did virtually everybody in government, a judicial raid on the state 
treasury, something that all of us ought to be concerned about.
  Indeed, the combined costs of the St. Louis and Kansas City 
desegregation plans have been higher than the costs of desegregation in 
all the other states combined, with the exception of California. 
Moreover, the way the plan was structured most of the money was 
funneled to the white suburbs. In 1996, when the total cost of the 
program was $1.3 billion, only between $100 and $200 million went to 
the St. Louis schools. That doesn't sound like desegregation to me. Yet 
that is what these liberals have been arguing for.
  The results of these court-ordered remedies have been truly 
unimpressive. For instance, test scores actually went down from 1990 to 
1995. Scores on the Stanford Achievement Test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at 
a time when the national mean was 50. It doesn't sound like very good 
desegregation to me. The graduation rate has remained around an abysmal 
30 percent. And as far as actual desegregation, the percentage of 
African-American students in the St. Louis schools has remained almost 
identical to what it was when the plan started, about 80 percent.
  Yet our liberal friends, both in this body and in the outside groups, 
would have you believe Senator Ashcroft is doing a terrible thing 
against desegregation and against integration. And they just plain 
don't accept his very honest statements that he has always been for 
desegregation and for integration. He has never spoken against them.
  It has been suggested that then-Attorney General Ashcroft's lack of 
enthusiasm for this plan demonstrates insensitivity toward the needs of 
the students in St. Louis.
  It has been suggested that then-Attorney General Ashcroft's lack of 
enthusiasm for this plan demonstrates insensitivity toward the needs of 
the students in St. Louis. But given these unimpressive results and 
extraordinary costs, I think it seems perfectly understandable that 
many State officials from both political parties have consistently had 
doubts about this plan. Indeed, Senator Ashcroft's democratic successor 
as attorney general took the same position on behalf of the State of 
Missouri.

[[Page 1137]]

  Third, some of my colleagues have charged that Senator Ashcroft 
misrepresented his involvement with the desegregation cases. This is 
also a significant distortion of Senator Ashcroft's responses to a 
flurry of questions. The Missouri school desegregation cases are 
extremely complex and involve a variety of different factual and 
constitutional issues. Perhaps Senator Ashcroft made some preliminary 
statements that were incomplete, but when questioned further, he 
clarified his answers. Moreover, in an extended response to a written 
question, he fully detailed Missouri's liability and involvement with 
the case.
  Senator Ashcroft has acknowledged that the State was found liable for 
desegregation. However, the State was found liable only for an intra-
district violation, that is a violation in the one district of St. 
Louis. The State was never at any time adjudged liable for an intra-
district violation involving the St. Louis suburbs--this is the bottom 
line of a long and somewhat murky legal record.
  The fact that Missouri was never found to have committed an 
interdistrict violation is easily proved. Consider that throughout 1981 
and 1982 the parties and the court were preparing for a trial on the 
very question of interdistrict liability. It goes without saying that a 
trial on the point would have been unnecessary if liability had already 
been determined.
  In fact there was never a trial on the interdistrict liability. This 
trial was averted because the suburban schools and the St. Louis Board 
of Education agreed to a consent decree. In fact, this settlement was 
hastened when the district court announced that it would have to 
consolidate city and county school districts if at trial liability is 
proved of an interdistrict violation. The threat of consolidating 
suburban and city school districts was enough to prompt the city and 
county to reach a settlement agreement, an agreement to which the State 
was not a party. The consent decree entered by the district court did 
not contain the necessary finding of liability for an interdistrict 
violation. Thus, a settlement was reached in which the State was 
required to pay for an inter-district remedy between the city and 
county although it had never been found liability of an inter-district 
violation.
  Missouri's arguments on appeal against the district court's order had 
a strong legal basis. The Supreme Court had previously held in Milliken 
that a district court must find an interdistrict violation before it 
can order an interdistrict remedy. Indeed, such a remedy must also be 
narrowly tailored to fit only the particular constitutional violation. 
There was no finding of liability here, much less a determination by 
the court that the settlement met constitutional requirements.
  Moreover, the State did not willfully refuse to comply with the 
district court's orders. What the district court ordered was for the 
parties to the litigation to enter into a voluntary plan for 
interdistrict transfers of students to suburban schools. But such a 
plan was an impossibility because the suburban school districts were 
necessary parties who were not before the court. No satisfactory plan 
was likely to be produced under those circumstances. Indeed, no 
successful plan was produced until the suburban schools were joined and 
threatened by the district court directly with being placed by the 
court into the same school district as the city schools.
  The district court did criticize the State, but it did not hold the 
State in contempt. Probably because the court realized that it had 
essentially ordered the State and other defendants to perform an 
impossibility.
  Finally, Senator Ashcroft has been criticized for being overly 
litigious in the desegregation cases. But an electronic search reveals 
that Senator Ashcroft was actually the least litigious of the attorneys 
general who represented the State during any significant portion of 
this litigation. During the 8 years that John Ashcroft was attorney 
general, there are 18 entries relating to this case.
  By comparison, during the 8 years William Webster was attorney 
general, there are 34 entries. And during the 7 years that Jay Nixon, a 
democrat, was attorney general, there are 22 entries.
  Then-Attorney General Ashcroft did bring several appeals to the 
district court's action. But this is understandable given that the 
courts never found the State liable for an inter-district violation. A 
very key point, by the way. Senator Ashcroft's position on behalf of 
the State was eventually vindicated in the Kansas City school 
desegregation litigation. That line of cases culminated in Missouri 
versus Jenkins--in which the Supreme Court held that an interdistrict 
violation is required before a Federal court can impose interdistrict 
remedies.
  In sum, Senator Ashcroft was a faithful advocate for the State of 
Missouri. He defended the interests of all state taxpayers through a 
series of legally justified appeals. The legal theories he advanced on 
behalf of the State were eventually vindicated by the Supreme Court. As 
Missouri attorney general he supported improved educational 
opportunities for children, not the failed and extremely expensive 
court-ordered remedies developed by the district court. Senator 
Ashcroft's actions contesting the details of a complicated court-
ordered busing scheme does not mean that he opposed segregation. Quite 
to the contrary, Senator Ashcroft opposes segregation and supports 
integration, and he represented his client the State in good faith.
  Some remarks have been made about some of the judge's crusty remarks. 
For those of us who have been in litigation before the Federal courts, 
we are kind of used to those crusty remarks from time to time. Frankly, 
because one single Federal judge of the approximately 800 district and 
Federal judges in this country makes a crusty remark, that should not 
be interpreted as condemnation of John Ashcroft or any other litigant 
before the court, nor was there any indication of any kind of censure 
by the court or contempt proceedings. As a matter of fact, it did not 
happen. Yet there have been allusions here on the floor that there 
should have been contempt proceedings. Come on, the law is pretty 
clear. This has been distorted. It is really offensive to have it 
distorted in a way that flies in the way of true civil rights, a man 
who basically has stood up for civil rights throughout his lifetime.
  Another topic that has been brought up again and again is Senator 
Ashcroft's opposition to Judge Ronnie White. Mr. President, I am 
concerned that some of my colleagues continue to denigrate Senator 
Ashcroft for his involvement in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. 
It has been said that Senator Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record 
and wrongly painted him as pro-criminal and antilaw enforcement.
  But there were many reasons to vote against confirmation for Judge 
White. In fact, every Republican did so. I have reviewed Judge White's 
record and several of his dissenting opinions in death penalty cases, 
and I can understand Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White's 
nomination to the Federal bench.
  For instance in the Johnson case, the defendant was convicted on four 
counts of first-degree murder for killing three officers and the wife 
of the sheriff. Johnson was sentenced to death on all counts. On 
appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Judge White 
dissented arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of 
counsel. Judge White thought that Johnson deserved further opportunity 
to present a defense based on post-traumatic stress disorder. But the 
majority showed that there was no credible evidence that Johnson 
suffered from this disorder. Rather, it was clear that defense counsel 
had fabricated a story that was quickly disproved at trial. For 
instance, defense counsel stated that Johnson had placed a perimeter of 
cans and strings and had deflated the tires of his car. At trial, 
testimony revealed that police officers had taken these actions, not 
the defendant.
  Further, Congressman Kenneth Hulshof, the prosecutor in the Johnson 
case testified at Senator Ashcroft's hearings that it was almost 
impossible to make out an argument for ineffective assistance of 
counsel because the

[[Page 1138]]

defendant ``hired counsel of his own choosing. He picked from our area 
in mid-Missouri what . . . I referred to as a dream team.''
  Judge White has every right to pen a dissent in Johnson and other 
cases involving the death penalty. Similarly, every Senator has the 
duty to evaluate these opinions as part of Judge White's judicial 
record. And that's just what Senator Ashcroft did. At no time did 
Senator Ashcroft derogate Judge White's background.
  I consider Judge White to be a decent man with an impressive personal 
background. He has accomplished a great deal and came up from humble 
beginnings. But his record of dissenting in death penalty cases was 
sufficiently troubling to cause Senator Ashcroft and others to oppose 
the nomination.
  Some of our colleagues have impugned Senator Ashcroft's motives for 
voting against Judge White. But Judge White's nomination was strongly 
opposed by many of Senator Ashcroft's constituents and also by major 
law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association 
and the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs.
  Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by Johnson 
testified:

       I opposed Judge White's nomination to the federal bench, 
     and I asked Senator Ashcroft to join me because of Judge 
     White's opinion on a death penalty case . . . In his opinion, 
     Judge White urged that Johnson be given a second chance at 
     freedom. I cannot understand his reasoning. I know that the 
     four people killed were not given a second chance.

  Finally, some of my colleagues have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's 
opposition to Judge White was underhanded and done with stealth. Well, 
Senator Ashcroft voted against Judge White's nomination in committee. 
He expressed his disapproval at that time. If he had held up the 
nomination in committee without allowing it to proceed to the floor he 
would have been criticized for delay.
  Indeed, Senator Boxer pleaded during a debate about several judges 
including Ronnie White:

       I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all 
     things that are good in our country, give people a chance. If 
     you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with 
     something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We 
     can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It 
     is wrong. You would not do it to a friend.

  Thus, Senator Ashcroft was between a rock and a hard place as how to 
raise his legitimate concerns about Judge White.
  Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity, one of the most 
qualified nominees for Attorney General that we have ever seen. His 
opposition to Judge White was principled and in keeping with the proper 
exercise of the constitutional advice and consent duty of a Senator. I 
regret that we have needed to revisit this issue at such great length.
  Now, Mr. President, let me address one final issue that continues to 
come up. Some critics of Senator Ashcroft have stated that he distorted 
Bill Lann Lee's record when he was nominated to head the Civil Rights 
Division. But this is simply not the case. Mr. Lee had a noted record 
of promoting and preserving race-conscious policies of questionable 
constitutionality. Opposition to Mr. Lee was not limited to Senator 
Ashcroft--nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed this 
nominee, including myself.
  Let me say that I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee and 
the difficult circumstances in which his family came to this country, 
worked hard, and realized the American dream.
  Despite this high personal regard, I was deeply concerned about Mr. 
Lee's nomination because much of his career was devoted to preserving 
constitutionally suspect race-conscious public policies that ultimately 
sort and divide citizens by race. At the time of his hearings, it was 
clear that he would have us continue down the road of racial spoils, a 
road on which Americans are seen principally through the looking glass 
of race.
  Senator Ashcroft's principled opposition to Mr. Lee was firmly based 
in the record. The signs that Mr. Lee would pursue an activist agenda 
were clear at his hearings. At that time he narrowly defined the rule 
in Adarand and could not distinguish cases that he would bring as 
Assistant Attorney General from those he brought in the NAACP Legal 
Defense Fund.
  Some have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Mr. Lee was 
based on mischaracterizations. But Senator Ashcroft did not distort Mr. 
Lee's testimony. When Mr. Lee stated the test of Adarand versus Pena he 
said that the Supreme Court considered racial preference programs 
permissible if ``conducted in a limited and measured manner.'' While 
this might be correct in a narrow sense, it purposefully misses the 
main point of the Court's fundamental holding that such race-conscious 
programs are presumptively unconstitutional. Mr. Lee might have stated 
that strict scrutiny was the standard articulated in Adarand; however, 
when he described the content of this standard it was far looser than 
what the Supreme Court delineated. A ``limited and measured manner'' is 
a standard far more lenient than the strict scrutiny standard of 
``narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.'' Mr. 
Lee's misleading description can properly be assailed as a fundamental 
mischaracterization of the spirit of the law.
  Senator Ashcroft has stated that he opposed Mr. Lee because of his 
record of advocacy and his distortion of precedent. These failures to 
properly interpret the law would have serious effects on Mr. Lee's 
ability to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. 
Senator Ashcroft's reasons for opposing Mr. Lee were amply supported by 
the record.
  By contrast to Mr. Lee, Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly distinguished 
his role as a legislator and advocate from that of the Attorney 
General. He understands that his political advocacy gets checked at the 
door of the Department of Justice. Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly 
stated that he would enforce the law as it exists to protect the civil 
liberties of all Americans. He is committed to defending the 
constitutional rights of all individuals and has testified that he will 
make the enforcement of civil rights one of his topmost priorities. As 
Senator Ashcroft stated,

       My highest priority is to ensure that the Department of 
     Justice lives up to its heritage of enforcing the rule of 
     law, and in particular, guaranteeing legal rights for the 
     advancement of all Americans. . . . [O]ne of my highest 
     priorities at the Department will be to target the 
     unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.

  Senator Ashcroft's critics also allege that because Senator Ashcroft 
opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney 
General for Civil Rights, Senator Ashcroft will himself be unable to 
defend civil liberties. But this is an incredible and illogical leap. 
To oppose the race-conscious policies favored by Mr. Lee is to value 
the true principles of the civil rights movement--equality of 
opportunity for all Americans.
  At the hearings and in supplemental questions, my colleagues have 
raised issues concerning Senator Ashcroft's plans for the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice should he be confirmed as 
Attorney General. Let me say that I am confident that Senator Ashcroft 
will fight for the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. He 
believes that everyone deserves an opportunity to succeed and that 
those at the bottom of our society may need a helping hand.
  Senator Ashcroft strongly supports ``affirmative access'' programs. 
As he testified,

       We can expand the invitation for people to participate 
     aggressively so that no one is denied the capacity to 
     participate simply because they didn't know about the 
     opportunities. We can work on education, which is the best 
     way for people to have access to achievement.

  Senator Ashcroft wants to encourage achievement and access to 
achievement. He wants to avoid what President Bush called the ``soft 
bigotry of low expectations'' that fuels many race-conscious programs.
  It is true that Senator Ashcroft is skeptical about government 
programs that categorize people by race. Some of these programs might 
be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand 
versus Pena. That decision stated that all governmental racial 
classifications should be subject to

[[Page 1139]]

strict scrutiny, that is such classifications must be narrowly tailored 
to serve a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court made 
clear that there was no such things as a ``benign'' racial 
classification, and that the government may treat people differently 
because of their race for only the most compelling reason. This view of 
governmental racial classifications comports with the development of 
constitutional protections for civil liberties. Senator Ashcroft is 
solidly with the Supreme Court on this issue.
     We have no reason to doubt that Senator Ashcroft will work 
         long and hard to defend the civil liberties of all 
         Americans.
  These are the points that are repeatedly used to denigrate Senator 
Ashcroft's character and motivation. But when the facts are examined, 
these charges simply do not stick. Senator Ashcroft is a man of 
tremendous integrity and probity and I hope that we move quickly to 
confirm him.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware was going to 
speak, but if I might, just before he does, and on this issue, the 
desegregation efforts in Missouri in 1992, when Jay Nixon first ran for 
attorney general in Missouri, he did recognize the need to settle the 
St. Louis and Kansas City desegregation issues. He said the State, the 
cities, and parents needed resolution and certainty after years of 
nonstop litigation. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial summed up the 
differences under Jay Nixon. It said:

       Their differences in how the State should respond to the 
     Federal court orders of desegregation for St. Louis and 
     Kansas City schools is instructive. The Republican wants to 
     keep fighting although the State lost the case long ago. The 
     Democrat wants to have a settlement.

  Mr. Nixon then followed through in this agreement. He was the first 
Missouri official to sign a resolution on behalf of the State, and he 
was a supporter of the law that provided the State funding to settle 
the St. Louis case. In both the settlement agreement and the law to 
implement it, then Governor, Governor Carnahan, provided the leadership 
that Governor Ashcroft did not provide.
  Senator Ashcroft ran for Governor in 1984 as a strong opponent of the 
settlement, the settlement finally had in Missouri. He was 8 years as 
attorney general and 8 years as Governor. In those years he denied 
liability, opposed a fair settlement, and litigated the questions over 
and over again.
  I will put in the Record in a moment a letter from Arthur Benson who, 
since 1979, has been lead counsel for the schoolchildren in the Kansas 
City desegregation litigation.
  What he said in it is:

       While the case proved difficult to settle with the State, 
     it did eventually settle because Jay Nixon and other Missouri 
     officials wanted to settle rather than litigate, and because 
     he wanted to refocus the time and efforts of state officials 
     on improving education.
  To this Senator's mind, this is a marked difference from what Senator 
Ashcroft had done. In any event, Senators have to make up their own 
minds.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                   Arthur Benson & Associates,

                                Kansas City, MO, January 30, 2001.
     Hon. Patrick Leahy,
     U.S. Senate, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Leahy: Since 1979 I have been the lead counsel 
     for the plaintiff schoolchildren in the Kansas City school 
     desegregation litigation, now styled as Jenkins et al., v. 
     Kansas City Missouri School District, case number Case No. 
     77-0420-CV-W-1, United States District Court for the Western 
     District of Missouri.
       After January 1993 there was a marked change in the manner 
     in which the then defendants of the State of Missouri were 
     represented in this litigation. After January 1993 Attorney 
     General Jay Nixon continued to defend the legal positions of 
     the State of Missouri defendants vigorously and well. At the 
     same time, however, he never denied the State's 
     responsibility for eliminating the vestiges of its prior de 
     jure segregation. He also expressed interest in settlement, 
     supported legislative initiatives in the Missouri legislature 
     that would provide necessary underpinning for any settlement, 
     and proposed alternatives to the courts in response to 
     remedial proposals of the plaintiffs, all of which were 
     changes from the litigation tactics of the state defendants 
     in this case before 1993.
       While the case proved difficult to settle with the State, 
     it did eventually settle because Jay Nixon and other Missouri 
     officials wanted to settle rather than litigate, and because 
     he wanted to refocus the time and efforts of state officials 
     on improving education.
           Yours very truly,
                                                    Arthur Benson.

  Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Delaware.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, just a few moments ago, I had a phone 
conversation with Senator Ashcroft--it was not an easy call for me, and 
I suspect it was not an easy call for him--in which I shared with him 
my decision not to vote for his confirmation to be Attorney General for 
our country.
  Unlike many of my colleagues in this body, I never served with 
Senator Ashcroft. We heard a lot about him today from those who know 
him better than I ever will. While some are full of praise and others 
are more critical, a number of characteristics about the man emerge. I 
want to reiterate some of those.
  Even his critics will acknowledge that John Ashcroft is a person of 
intellect, someone with great energy, someone with a wealth of 
experience within his own State and here at the Federal level, a person 
of deep faith, someone who was gracious in defeat in his reelection 
campaign last November. If he were a nominee for Secretary of 
Education, Secretary of Energy, Secretary of Agriculture, or Secretary 
of Housing and Urban Development, my vote would be different; I would 
vote for him. But he is not. He is the nominee for Attorney General for 
our country.
  Senator Ashcroft and I have some common roots. I share his deep 
faith. We are both Christians. I have been Governor of my State. He was 
Governor of his State. He nominated many people to serve in that 
capacity. I nominated many people to serve in that capacity as well, 
judges and people to serve on my cabinet. Governors of Delaware do not 
nominate the attorney general of our State. The person charged with law 
enforcement and prosecuting criminals in our State is the attorney 
general, who is independently elected.
  Some have said to me that the President should have the right to his 
choice of his attorney. We need to remember that the Attorney General 
is not just the President's attorney. The President actually has his 
own attorney, and all Presidents for a long time have had their own 
attorneys. The Attorney General is the Attorney General for the 
country.
  There was a fellow named George Wallace who used to be Governor of 
Alabama. Many of us remember him. When he would run for President, he 
knew he was not going to win. John Ashcroft is going to win. He will be 
confirmed today. He knows that, and I think we know that.
  When George Wallace used to run for President, he would say to the 
voters who were skeptical to spend their vote on a guy who was not 
going to win: Send them a message.
  I am struck by the people in my State, people of color, who have said 
to me in the last month or two since John Ashcroft's name was floated 
and ultimately submitted by President Bush, that even if Senator 
Ashcroft is confirmed as Attorney General, we need to send him a 
message, and the message is that people in my State, particularly 
people of color, are uncomfortable with this nomination. They are 
unconvinced that he will be forthright, that he will be consistent, 
that he will be persistent, that he will be a champion when it comes to 
ensuring that their civil rights are protected.
  John Ashcroft comes from Missouri. It is a show-me State. There are 
people in my State, especially people of color--and I know there are 
others in Delaware and in other States--who are concerned about whether 
or not Attorney General John Ashcroft would ensure reproductive rights 
for women, civil rights for those who may have different sexual 
preferences than others of us, people who may feel differently

[[Page 1140]]

about gun laws. Will this Attorney General enforce the laws of the land 
and protect those interests as well?
  I have heard from too many people in my State--from the minority 
community--who have said we need to send a message to Washington, to 
the new administration, that they do not want to be forgotten. They do 
not want to be left behind. As much progress as we have made in 
providing a better, equal footing, a level playing field for people of 
color, we still have a long ways to go.
  I regret I have to vote against our new President on this nomination. 
I will vote yes on every other one. This is one on which I have to take 
a different course.
  I thank Senator Ashcroft for the conversation we just had a little 
bit ago. I am hopeful he is prepared to send all of us a message, 
regardless of where we are from, what our color is, what our sexual 
preference is, how we feel about a woman's reproductive right, and that 
is: As Attorney General he will enforce rigorously the laws of this 
land for all of us. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise to support the nomination of John 
Ashcroft, a person with whom I have had the opportunity to serve in the 
Senate for the 6 years he was here before ending that term after the 
last election.
  I think the President of the United States has selected an 
outstanding nominee to head up the Justice Department. I look forward 
to working with him.
  Despite the campaign that has been launched against him, he will be 
approved by a sizable margin so that he can do his work and do it 
without any guilt whatsoever about any of the accusations that have 
been made against him. I add my voice in support of his nomination.
  Despite these well-publicized, well-financed attempts orchestrated by 
outside groups to smear his good name, I am thankful Senator Ashcroft 
will survive this reckless campaign that has snowballed into an 
avalanche of innuendo, rumor, and spin.
  From the moment President Bush announced his choice for U.S. Attorney 
General, some predictable opponents immediately got to work. They 
circled their wagons and launched an all-out war on our former 
colleague and his nomination to be Attorney General.
  In their zeal to pick a fight with the new administration, the debate 
in the Senate has melted down into a feeding frenzy for the left wing 
which sought in the process to lay down markers for their agenda.
  Ironically, the President's nominee for the Nation's top law 
enforcement office in the country is arguably one of the most qualified 
candidates this body has ever had the privilege to cast its advice and 
consent on for the office of U.S. Attorney General. He was twice 
elected Governor of Missouri, served two terms there as the attorney 
general, and was for 6 years our colleague--all of that public service 
is remarkable for a person who will go on to be Attorney General.
  He has the academic background and the legal background to also be a 
good Attorney General.
  From the 6 years I had the privilege of working with John Ashcroft in 
the Senate, I can unequivocally say he is a man of his word. And what 
is so important about being a man of his word is that the case made 
against John Ashcroft is that in the Senate he pursued changes in law, 
he pursued public policies that maybe some did not agree with. But that 
is the job of a Senator: to vote for or against public policy you think 
is good on the one hand, bad on the other hand; public policy you might 
agree with on the one hand or might disagree with on the other hand.
  They say he is not qualified to be Attorney General because of a lot 
of things he did in the Senate, representing his constituents--
forthrightly arguing points he believed in, and voting on those points. 
But has integrity and honesty. And being a man of his word is so 
important because as Attorney General he will take an oath to uphold 
the law. He is going to enforce that law, even law with which he does 
not agree.
  He could even be in the position of enforcing some piece of 
legislation against which he voted on the floor of the Senate because 
he is a man of his word. And with all the criticism people have had of 
John Ashcroft, where they disagreed with him as a Senator, and then 
they criticize him as not being qualified or the right person to be 
Attorney General, they forget that because he is a man of his word, 
they have nothing to worry about.
  In fact, he is such a man of his word that if he were to tell a fib, 
you would know it right away. He is that straight laced, that 
straightforward, that transparent of an individual, that he would tell 
you the truth because he could not lie. He couldn't get away with 
lying. And he knows he couldn't get away with lying. That is the sort 
of a person to have as Attorney General of the United States.
  We are going to have a person who is going to be the chief law 
enforcement officer of the United States. You will never see him being 
the chief defense counsel for the President of the United States as we 
have seen over the last 4 or 5 years in the previous administration. 
John Ashcroft, put in that position, would resign from being Attorney 
General of the United States.
  So the people who are making a case against his being Attorney 
General, because of votes and speeches and positions he has taken on 
the floor of the Senate, are comparing apples and oranges; and they are 
forgetting that a man of his word is going to do what he says, and he 
takes an oath to uphold the law and enforce that law; and it is going 
to get done. So I say, once again, he is unequivocally a man of his 
word.
  He testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he will 
enforce the laws of this land, and he is going to do that for all 
Americans. He said that, and he is going to do it. And his saying that 
makes me fully confident that he will do so.
  He has a sharp command of the law, having filled both shoes of 
Senator, Governor and state Attorney General. He understands the 
difference between advancing legislation as a Senator and enforcing the 
laws on the books as a state Attorney General. And along this line, he 
has been recognized by the leaders of other States in this area, 
because he was elected by the National Association of Attorneys 
General, and elected in another position by the National Governors' 
Association, to represent and lead their organizations while he was in 
those two positions for the State of Missouri.
  As fellow midwesterners, John and I come from States where 
agricultural issues are key components of our economy, our culture, and 
our heritage. We have discussed at length how to address the challenges 
confronting family farmers in this new century. He shares my concern 
that we must foster competitive markets and that the family farmer is 
entitled to a level playing field--the same for independent producers--
and he would say, beyond agriculture, fair competition is important for 
the small business people of America.
  He would also say that for passengers in my State who pay 
extraordinarily high airline tickets to fly from Des Moines, IA, to 
Chicago, there has to be competition in the airline industry, 
particularly for rural America.
  Based on my experience with Senator Ashcroft's work here in the 
Senate, I know he is committed to doing what is right for middle 
America as he enforces these laws that are already on the books. He 
knows, of course, that I will keep my lines of communication wide open 
between my office and his when it comes to fighting for the interests 
of rural America.
  In addition to his exemplary professional credentials, there is 
another issue upon which his supporters and detractors alike agree, and 
that is, our former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, is a man of 
principle. He is a man of his word. Just ask the people of Missouri 
who, not once but time and time again, placed their trust in him for 
high statewide elected office.
  Senator Ashcroft's career has been stellar. During his career, 
Senator Ashcroft has worked to establish a

[[Page 1141]]

number of things to keep all Americans safe and free from criminal 
activity.
  For example, last year Senator Ashcroft introduced a bill to prohibit 
juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition 
clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed this Ashcroft legislation. He 
also voted for the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act that prohibits the 
possession of a firearm within a school zone. Because the Clinton 
Justice Department had not made gun prosecutions a priority, Senator 
Ashcroft led the charge in directing the Justice Department to increase 
the prosecution of crimes committed with guns. In fact, he sponsored 
legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional Federal 
prosecutors and law enforcement officers to increase Federal 
prosecution of criminals who use guns.
  John Ashcroft's efforts against drug abuse and trafficking are 
equally as impressive. A leader in the national fight against the 
scourge of methamphetamine, John Ashcroft won enactment of the 
Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act of 1996, among other antidrug 
laws he got passed.
  Senator Ashcroft has fought hard for the rights of women and to 
protect them from domestic abuse. He signed into law a bill, when he 
was Governor, that allowed women accused of homicide to present 
battered spouse syndrome evidence in the court in that State. He 
cosponsored, at the Federal level, the Violence Against Women Act that 
helped secure $100 million in increased funding to combat violence 
against women.
  He voted for legislation that prohibits any person convicted of even 
misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing a firearm.
  As Governor, Senator Ashcroft appointed women to the State's 
appellate courts, including the first two women to the Missouri Court 
of Appeals and the first woman to the Missouri Supreme Court.
  In regard to the tactics used against him, deploying distortion and 
demagoguery to advance their own agenda, groups inside the beltway, who 
probably have felt very secure for the last years because they had 
somebody in the White House who would advance their agenda, now feel a 
little shut out. They have banded together to engineer a controversy 
about John Ashcroft where none exists. They rushed to cast judgment, 
and in the process his opponents sought to paint John Ashcroft as a 
racist, as somebody tainted by his principles and unfit to lead the 
Department of Justice.
  Obviously, in my view, these critics have been unable to make their 
case, and I think when this vote is taken, we will find out that they 
did not make their case.
  Despite his critics' best efforts, accusations of racism and bias 
have not stuck. In fact, throughout his career, Senator Ashcroft has 
tried to protect the rights of minorities. He signed the Missouri hate 
crimes bill into law, and in the Senate he held the first-ever hearing 
on racial profiling. As Governor, he appointed a number of minority 
judicial candidates. His by-the-book approach to governing rises above 
and way beyond the decibel level of his detractors, the 200-some 
organizations that have banded together to make this clean-cut, honest 
American, great public servant, out to be some very bad person.
  It is sad that the aggressive publicity generated by the special 
interest groups to derail this nomination has painted an unfair image 
of John Ashcroft in the minds of too many Americans. For example, 
contrary to the controversy surrounding the nomination to the Federal 
bench of Ronnie White, John Ashcroft does not have a racist bone in his 
body. If his opponents are keeping track of his support for black 
judges, it is ironic that they didn't care to publicize the fact that 
he, as Senator, voted for 26 out of 28 judges of African American 
descent. He nominated the first black judge to the appellate court as 
Governor of Missouri, and the St. Louis Black Bar Association praised 
him for diversity in his court appointments. The trumped-up charges of 
racism and bias took on a life of their own, but in fact they ring very 
hollow when we pull back the curtain of his opponents' red hot 
rhetoric.
  In recent years, misrepresentations and baldfaced lies coming out of 
Washington have eroded the electorate's faith and trust in public 
officials, including all of us. Thankfully, that is not the way the 
majority of the American people operate. To the majority of the 
American people, the end does not always justify the means. In fact, 
seldom is that true. But in the case of this opposition to John 
Ashcroft, any means is justified for the end they want--to let their 
grassroots members back home know that even though they don't have the 
President of the United States always carrying their agenda, as they 
did the last 8 years, they are going to be a force in this town. And 
they are a force in this town.
  They are also telling Members of Congress, particularly left-of-
center Members of Congress: You are on a short leash. We have to be 
reckoned with. Don't toy around with playing with the Republicans too 
much or a Republican President. It is also going to help them 
tremendously with their fund-raising. That is what is at stake here.
  The majority of Americans do not operate that way. Not even a 
majority of their own rank-and-file members at the grassroots operate 
that way. I was a member of a labor union from 1961 to 1971. If there 
is one thing I learned as a member of the labor union--and I was 
voluntarily a member of the labor union because in my State, we have 
the right-to-work law, you don't have to join--I found out that the 
political agenda of the labor union leadership of Detroit or 
Washington, DC, did not represent the political philosophy of my 
members on the assembly line at the Waterloo Register Company in Cedar 
Falls, IA. They may have represented our economic interests of 
collective bargaining, but they did not represent the political 
interests of the commonsense, conservative blue-collar workers. It is 
the very same way with a lot of these organizations. When we go back to 
the grassroots of our States and interact with the rank-and-file 
members of a lot of these organizations, they do not treat us in our 
State the way these leaders might treat us out here, as evidenced by 
the fact of how they treat John Ashcroft. Misrepresentations and 
baldfaced lies that are used by this group are not the way my friend 
and neighbor, John Ashcroft, has built up an impeccable record of 
honest public service. His rock-solid integrity, legal background, and 
proven ability to uphold and enforce the law will restore the mission 
of the Justice Department.
  It is clear to me that despite his personal beliefs, Senator Ashcroft 
has proven his ability to uphold the law without the influence of 
personal bias. For example, as Missouri attorney general, John Ashcroft 
protected the confidentiality of abortion records maintained by the 
Missouri Department of Health, even when they were requested by pro-
life groups. He has voiced his opposition to violence and his belief 
that, regardless of his personal views on abortion, people should be 
able to enter abortion clinics safely. That is the law of the land. 
Senator Ashcroft's views on abortion are known. But as Attorney 
General, those laws would not be something that he could change, as one 
could as a legislator. As a Senator, as a policymaker, he could change 
some things he might not agree with and I may not agree with. It is 
still the law of the land, and we live by it.
  Senator Ashcroft believes that people who commit acts of violence and 
intimidation should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. He 
knows that if you are going to have a civil society, you cannot 
tolerate violence on the part of pro-life people any more than you can 
tolerate violence on the part of union leaders on the picket line.
  I conclude by saying that everyone in this institution comes to the 
Senate with a set of ideals and principles that serve as their guiding 
compass. Whether it is based upon conservatism, liberalism, or 
something else, or something in between, each of us in this Chamber has 
the privilege and responsibility to cast votes of conscience.

[[Page 1142]]

When the Presiding Officer calls the yeas and nays on this nomination, 
I hope that the avalanche of unproven criticism will be put to rest as 
a result of that vote.
  I want us to confirm John Ashcroft as our next Attorney General. I 
have listened to the opponents of John Ashcroft speak here. I have not 
heard every one of the speeches, but I had an opportunity to be on a 
television program with a colleague of mine from the other side of the 
aisle who is going to vote against this nomination, the Senator from 
Indiana, Mr. Bayh, a person of outstanding ethics, honesty, and moral 
values. His dad served in this Senate, was an outstanding leader and a 
person of moral and high ethical values as well.
  I would vote for Senator Bayh to be Attorney General of the United 
States, if a Democrat President nominated him, because he is just the 
sort of person who, when you look at him, you just know this guy is not 
going to do something that is wrong. You know he is going to enforce 
the law.
  I hope all of the people who are upright and of strong conviction on 
the other side, people who have high moral and ethical values--and I 
know my colleagues on the other side to be in that category--I hope 
they vote for John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. I could cast a vote 
for them as well for Attorney General, not because they are my 
colleagues, but because of what I have seen in their lives. I hope they 
truly have seen what is in John Ashcroft's life. And I hope those that 
are against him will have a little guilty feeling about voting against 
him, unless I see them differently from the way they are and I have 
been mistaken about John Ashcroft. But I haven't been mistaken about 
John Ashcroft, and I haven't been mistaken about my colleagues from the 
other side as well. I just hope there is a lot of soul searching in the 
next few hours before we vote because I think this Senator is entitled 
to an overwhelming vote of support to become the next Attorney General 
of the United States.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, I regretfully rise today to oppose the 
nomination of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. 
As a new Member of the U.S. Senate, I did not have the opportunity to 
serve with former Senator Ashcroft. I have only his record and his 
testimony on which to make this decision. I come to this judgment after 
supporting almost all of President Bush's other Cabinet nominees. I 
believe that the President should be given broad latitude in choosing 
his Cabinet, but the Constitution clearly gives the Senate the 
responsibility of advice and consent. It is our responsibility to 
review the actions and backgrounds of the nominees and speak on behalf 
of the people we represent.
  I have listened intently to the judiciary hearings--the questions and 
the answers--and I would like to commend my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee for the thoughtful and thorough process that was used on this 
critically important nomination. There is no question that former 
Senator Ashcroft has a long career of public service. It is that career 
and the record that he has created that I feel compelled to evaluate as 
the most important consideration in making my decision. I have always 
believed that actions speak louder than words, especially when there is 
a long and consistent public history of questionable actions.
  This is especially important given the critical responsibilities and 
broad discretion given to the office of Attorney General. Let me list 
just a few of the actions that I find most disturbing. I was extremely 
troubled to learn of Senator Ashcroft's record as Missouri's attorney 
general when he strongly opposed a voluntary and court-ordered plan to 
desegregate many of the public schools in St. Louis. As the Governor of 
the State of Missouri, this nominee vetoed the Voter Registration 
Reform Act, which would have clearly increased the participation of 
minorities in the electoral process.
  His record on other antidiscrimination issues is equally disturbing. 
From his opposition to the ultimately successful appointment of James 
Hormel as Ambassador to Luxembourg, simply because he was gay, 
regardless of his qualifications, to his refusal to answer questions 
during his confirmation hearing about whether he would discriminate 
against Americans by denying them the ability to gain security 
clearances simply because of their sexual orientation. His record on 
women's rights is just as troubling. He has consistently used every 
opportunity and every power he has had to block reproductive choice for 
women including the extreme position of suing public health care nurses 
in the State of Missouri for providing basic gynecological and 
contraceptive services. In addition, his very vocal opposition to Roe 
vs. Wade and the basic reproductive rights of women is an issue that 
not only continues to worry me, but millions of women across this 
country.
  For me personally, one of the most troubling aspects of his record, 
was Senator Ashcroft's unfair treatment of Judge Ronald White when he 
spearheaded the U.S. Senate's rejection of his nomination to the 
Federal bench. This action was highly unusual and extremely unfortunate 
for Judge White and for the U.S. Senate.
  One of the most basic requirements of any nominee to be the U.S. 
Attorney General is an ability to exhibit a strong track record of 
fighting for the constitutional rights of all Americans--black, brown, 
or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor. In my opinion, 
Senator Ashcroft's record clearly fails to satisfy that most basic 
qualification. To the contrary, he has established a 25-year track 
record of opposing equal opportunities and fair play for too many 
Americans.
  The basic fact remains that the U.S. Attorney General is the people's 
lawyer, not the President's lawyer. He is the guardian of the 
constitutional rights of every American citizen. And I cannot in good 
conscience support a nominee who has spent much of the past 25 years 
opposing the constitutional rights of far too many of our citizens.
  Thank you. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could engage my friend from Utah, the 
manager of this nomination, I know our friend from Kansas is here, and 
the Senator from Iowa spoke for quite a long period of time. The 
Senator from Michigan spoke for just a few minutes. I think it would be 
appropriate to have the Senator from California speak. She will 
probably speak for about 35 or 40 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I believe Senator Brownback was next.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, if I could, I have about 10 minutes to 
speak. If I could, I would like to go in a back-and-forth order.
  Mr. REID. We just didn't want another 2- or 3-minute speech that took 
40 minutes.
  Mr. HATCH. I rightfully understand that. If the Senator will speak 
for 10 minutes or less, we would appreciate it.
  Mrs. BOXER. If we could have a unanimous consent agreement that 
following Senator Brownback, Senator Reid would be recognized, and then 
Senator Boxer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you, very much. I appreciate the opportunity to 
be here to speak in favor of our colleague, Senator Ashcroft, to be 
Attorney General of the United States.
  I serve on our Judiciary Committee along with the esteemed Presiding 
Officer.
  I wonder sometimes who people are talking about when I hear people 
saying he is too far this way or that way to be Attorney General. I 
wonder. How did he win statewide elections in a swing State such as 
Missouri for so many different elections. How was he elected president 
of the National Association of Attorney Generals? How was he elected 
head of the National Governors' Association--bipartisan groups? If this 
guy is so far out there on these issues, how on Earth did he get 
elected to all of these positions? It just baffles me other than to say 
he is not extreme.

[[Page 1143]]

  In most of his policy issues he has put forward, he cares strongly 
with passion. But there is a solid core of Americans, and in most cases 
a majority of Americans, who strongly believe in and agree with him on 
issues such as partial-birth abortion and other items. But that really 
is neither here nor there. The issue is whether he will enforce the 
law. That is what an Attorney General is required to do and is called 
upon to do and in States are elected to do. He has done that at the 
State level as an elected attorney general. He will do that as a 
national Attorney General, especially for the United States.
  I am new to the Judiciary Committee with this session. I am looking 
forward to serving on that body. But what I found by this process that 
we have had in the treatment of John Ashcroft is that it is an 
extraordinarily unfair process, and I think quite undeservedly toward 
John.
  Mr. President, I grew up in a town only about 20 miles from the State 
of Missouri in a small town called Parker, KS. I have had the 
opportunity to follow John's career for a long time. Our States share a 
common border. In the Senate, John and I served together on the 
Commerce and Foreign Relations Committee. Our offices were even down 
the hall from each other. John and I were neighbors here in Washington, 
and he even put me up in his house when my apartment building burned. I 
submit that he would do that for anyone who needed a roof over their 
head. But more important than geography or committee assignments, John 
Ashcroft is my friend. A friend who shared with me his honesty and 
integrity, his devotion to his creator, his principled character, and 
his steadfast belief that each of us is put here on Earth, to help our 
fellow man, and to leave the world a better place for all of our 
children.
  Contrary to the assertions of those who make a living exacerbating 
the tensions that divide us as a nation, I know John Ashcroft is 
committed to our Nation's promise of equal justice for all.
  President Bush made an outstanding choice for his Attorney General. 
John Ashcroft is one of the most qualified nominees for the office of 
Attorney General in history.
  But even more impressive than his resume, Mr. President, are John 
Ashcroft's words and deeds. Article II, section 3 of the Constitution 
provides that the President of the United States, ``shall take care 
that the laws be faithfully executed.'' The Department of Justice is 
the primary government agency charged with the President's 
constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws of the United 
States. John Ashcroft has fulfilled this function as two-time attorney 
general of the State of Missouri. In that role, John Ashcroft upheld 
law with which he personally disagreed, and which many of us in this 
body might disagree with. But as Missouri attorney general, he swore an 
oath to uphold the law, and he did. Mr. President, there are many 
issues on which many of us in this body disagree. But we are 
legislators, we write laws. That is not the role of the Attorney 
General of the United States. Mr. President, John Ashcroft raised his 
right hand swore before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would 
faithfully enforce the laws of the United States, ``So help me God.'' 
As a person who feels fortunate to call John Ashcroft a friend, I don't 
think there is a stronger guarantee than that oath he took.
  Some have called Senator Ashcroft's record on civil rights into 
question. This has been a program of distortion. As Missouri Governor, 
John Ashcroft signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute into law. As 
a U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft supported every African-American judicial 
nominee confirmed by the Senate. As chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, John Ashcroft convened a 
hearing on racial profiling with Senator Feingold, stating on the 
record that racial profiling is unconstitutional. John Ashcroft's 
record speaks for itself; he is a man of integrity dedicated to equal 
justice under law. There have been other distortions of Senator 
Ashcroft's record.
  Mr. President, I was heartened by Senator Feingold's remarks in the 
Judiciary Committee executive session yesterday, in which he extended 
an olive branch of peace and cooperation to our side of the aisle, and 
we have a Senate more evenly divided than we have had for almost 50 
years. Senator Feingold has answered President Bush's call to change 
the tone in Washington. It is a bold step, a step I hope my colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle will follow. I had the opportunity to 
speak personally with the witnesses who testified both for and against 
John Ashcroft's nomination. Believe me, there is more that binds us 
together as a people and a nation than keeps us apart. Let us begin 
this Congress in that spirit which Abraham Lincoln used to help heal a 
nation, when he warned that ``A house divided against itself cannot 
stand.'' I intend to vote for John Ashcroft's nomination to be Attorney 
General of the United States. I encourage my colleagues, on both sides 
of the aisle, to follow the spirit of Lincoln, and help renew the ties 
that bind us together, and to resist the temptation to use this process 
for political gain, and further divide us as a nation.
  I think once John Ashcroft is approved as Attorney General of the 
United States, he will be an outstanding and extraordinary Attorney 
General for all American people.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch and Senator Reid for 
reserving this time for me.
  As most people know, there were several Members who came out early 
with a position on John Ashcroft. Most came out for him before the 
hearings, and I came out against his confirmation. The people who came 
out for John Ashcroft before the hearings said they knew enough to know 
they were for him. I said, after looking at the record and being very 
familiar with the record, I could not support him. I actually asked 
then-President-elect Bush to reconsider his choice because I believed 
him when he said he wanted to unite the Nation rather than divide the 
Nation. I felt this nomination would be very divisive, would raise the 
very same issues that were raised during one of the most difficult 
campaigns that I certainly ever remember for President.
  I think what I said was borne out. This Presidential election was a 
mandate. Many people think if all the votes had been counted, it might 
have come out a different way. That is not the point. The point is, 
because it was so divisive, whoever won, whether it was Al Gore or 
George W. Bush, whoever actually took the office--in this case the 
Supreme Court decided to stop the count, and George W. Bush became 
President--whoever was President had to know that this was a very 
divided Nation and that we needed to put up moderate people--moderate 
people--for important offices such as Attorney General, Interior 
Secretary, and the like.
  For me, it is very rare to oppose a Bush Cabinet nominee. Out of all 
of them, I have opposed two. I have supported every other one. One 
thing John Ashcroft said is: I supported 90 percent of President 
Clinton's judges.
  Well, I supported 90 percent of George W. Bush's Cabinet picks. 
Therefore, when I choose to say no, it is because I feel very deeply 
and very firmly that John Ashcroft is not the right choice.
  President Bush said he picked John Ashcroft because ``he has a 
commitment to fair and firm and impartial administration of justice.'' 
He told us that John Ashcroft is ``a man who has a good and decent 
heart,'' and he asked us to look into the heart of John Ashcroft.
  Believe me, I have done that. And I have looked into the hearts of 
people who John Ashcroft has hurt. I believe this nomination should be 
rejected. I will be very specific.
  Judge Ronnie White: Was John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge Ronnie 
White fair? Did he have a good heart when it came to dealing with Judge 
Ronnie White? Let's revisit it. The American Bar Association gave Judge 
White a unanimous qualified rating.

[[Page 1144]]

Judge White was introduced at his nomination hearing for judgeship in 
front of the Judiciary Committee with glowing remarks by Senator Bond. 
With no warning, John Ashcroft championed the defeat of Judge White's 
nomination on the Senate floor.
  I have been in elective life for 25 years; certain things you do not 
remember and a lot of things you do. I will never forget the day this 
Senate voted down Judge Ronnie White on a straight partisan vote--the 
first time in 50 long years that a judge nominee who had been passed 
favorably through the Judiciary Committee was so treated.
  Why would I remember it so clearly? I thought a few people might vote 
no just as we have on many judge nominations. But I never thought that 
John Ashcroft would have rounded up and made it a big political issue 
that all the Republicans would stick with him on this vote. We all 
know, because we are not children in this body, there are other ways to 
treat someone who suddenly doesn't look like he will be confirmed. You 
bring it back to the committee, you have another vote. You don't do 
what they did to Ronnie White.
  I remember that Congresswoman Maxine Waters, one of my good friends, 
came over from the House that day. She was here because she wanted to 
celebrate the fact that Ronnie White was going to get this judgeship. 
She and I looked at each other as the nomination went down. It was a 
humiliating defeat. It was a sad, sad day.
  I compliment those Senators on the Judiciary Committee who apologized 
to Ronnie White. He never, ever should have been treated that way. It 
was unnecessary to do that to any human being.
  So, yes, I have looked into John Ashcroft's heart. And I say how 
could someone with a good heart do that to another good person? I do 
not understand it.
  I hope Senator Feingold will be listening, too, when he says to 
President Bush: Why don't you renominate Ronnie White in the spirit of 
reconciliation?
  During his floor remarks, John Ashcroft pointed to Judge White's 
dissent in a murder case. It was a horrific case. Yet John Ashcroft did 
not ask any questions of Judge White during the confirmation hearing or 
even afterwards in written follow-up questions about that case. I think 
a fundamental guarantee of our system of justice, particularly from 
someone who wants to be an Attorney General, is the right to give 
someone you are criticizing the right to be heard.
  Judge Ronnie White did not have that right until the Democrats called 
him up during this hearing. I appreciate the fact that he had that 
hearing in front of the Republicans and Democrats of that committee. 
That nomination was sabotaged on the floor of the Senate. It was wrong; 
it was harsh; it was cruel; it was humiliating; and it was not 
necessary.
  I think that speaks volumes about John Ashcroft's commitment to 
fairness. On the Senate floor, John Ashcroft said that Judge White was 
``pro-criminal, with a tremendous bent toward criminal activity.'' In 
the Judiciary Committee hearings last week, Judge White noted that 
after a long career in public service, including elective office, he 
had never, ever heard himself described that way.
  Judge White got the chance to set the record straight. He told the 
Judiciary Committee that he voted to affirm the death penalty 41 times 
out of 59 cases. And in 10 of the remaining 18, he joined a unanimous 
court in reversing. All together, Judge White voted with the majority 
of the court in 53 out of 59 cases. In only 6 cases did he dissent in a 
death penalty case, and in only 3 of those was he the sole dissenter. 
When you add this all up, it turns out that Judge White voted the same 
way as Ashcroft appointed judges--95 percent of the time.
  How did Judge White feel about John Ashcroft's pro-criminal label? 
This is what he said. He told the Judiciary Committee, ``Senator John 
Ashcroft seriously distorted my record.'' And he very graciously left 
it up to the Senate to decide whether that kind of treatment is 
consistent with fair play and justice that an Attorney General is 
expected to have.
  Conservative columnist Stuart Taylor of the National Journal has 
written that John Ashcroft's treatment of Judge White is enough to 
disqualify him for the position of Attorney General.
  Of Mr. Ashcroft's actions in the Ronnie White matter, Mr. Taylor 
wrote that Ashcroft:

       . . . abused the power of his office by descending to 
     demagoguery, dishonesty, and character assassination.

  Those are not my words. Those are the words of Stuart Taylor, a 
conservative journalist for the National Journal.
  Let's just say you think everybody is entitled to one mistake, to one 
mistreatment of another individual. Let's just say that. Unfortunately, 
in this case, I am going to point to a number of other examples.
  Take the case of James Hormel. Ambassador Hormel was nominated in 
1997 to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg. He was approved by the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 16-2. One of those 
``no'' votes was cast by Senator Ashcroft. Why did Senator Ashcroft 
oppose Ambassador Hormel, a very well-known businessman, a beautiful 
family--why?
  Let's check the record. In 1998, when asked about the nomination of 
James Hormel, Senator Ashcroft said:

       His conduct and the way in which he would represent the 
     United States is probably not up to the standard that I would 
     expect.

  Senator Ashcroft continued:

       He has been a leader in promoting a lifestyle . . . and the 
     kind of leadership he's exhibited there is likely to be 
     offensive to . . . individuals in the setting to which he 
     will be assigned.

  This is the comment of John Ashcroft on the nomination of James 
Hormel. Clearly, by this statement--

       He has been a leader in promoting a lifestyle . . . and the 
     kind of leadership he has exhibited there is likely to be 
     offensive to . . . individuals in the setting to which he 
     will be assigned.

  To me, you don't have to have a degree in psychology to understand 
what John Ashcroft is saying. He is saying he is a leader in promoting 
a gay lifestyle. That is what he is saying.
  This issue came up at the Judiciary Committee. When Senator Leahy 
asked John Ashcroft if he opposed James Hormel because he was gay, 
Senator Ashcroft replied:

       I did not.

  He said:

       I made a judgment that it would be ill-advised to make him 
     an ambassador based on the totality of the record.

  He went on to say:

       I had known Mr. Hormel for a long time.

  Ambassador Hormel responds:

       There is simply no truth in Mr. Ashcroft's statement that 
     he had any objective basis or personal knowledge upon which 
     to vote against my nomination.

  He went on to say:

       He refused to give any specific example of anything in my 
     record on which to base his opposition. I can only conclude 
     Mr. Ashcroft chose to vote against me solely because I am a 
     gay man.

  Is this fair? I already talked about Ronnie White. Senator Ashcroft 
never had the courtesy to ask Ronnie White any questions about the case 
that he said disqualified Ronnie White for a judgeship. And he led a 
fight here on the floor such that we have not seen in 50 long years to 
defeat Ronnie White. And he refused to meet at that time with 
Ambassador Hormel.
  Ambassador Hormel said: I want to meet with you, Senator Ashcroft.
  No. He refused. And Mr. Hormel stated he cannot remember having a 
single conversation with the Senator.
  Then, in his answers to a written follow-up question after the 
Judiciary Committee hearings last week, John Ashcroft changes his 
story. Ashcroft stated that:

       [B]ased on the totality of Mr. Hormel's advocacy, I didn't 
     believe he would effectively represent the United States in 
     Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe.

  So we have different answers. First, it was the totality of his 
knowledge of Mr. Hormel, whom he knew so well. Then Mr. Hormel says: He 
didn't even want to meet with me. And then he changes his answer again.

[[Page 1145]]

  He hurt James Hormel deeply by not allowing that Ambassadorship to 
come up for a vote. I think that kind of hurt says to me that when I 
look at his heart, I don't see the kindness and the caring about other 
people.
  So, you would say, OK, that was two. That was Ronnie White and James 
Hormel. Do we stop there? Unfortunately, we don't. We go to Margaret 
Morrow. Was John Ashcroft fair to Margaret Morrow, the first woman to 
head the Los Angeles Bar Association and the California Bar 
Association, nominated to the Federal district court in May of 1996, 
and not until 2 whole years later were we able to finally get a vote? 
And I must thank Chairman Hatch for that--by February 11, 1998.
  Why did it take so long? Simple: John Ashcroft placed a secret hold 
on Ms. Morrow's nomination. The hold kept Morrow from having a vote on 
the Senate floor; it kept her from having a fair up-or-down vote.
  I do not think that is fair. That was hurtful. He said she was an 
``activist judge.'' In fact, Ms. Morrow had overwhelming Republican 
support, to the contrary.
  Robert Bonner, a U.S. attorney appointed by Ronald Reagan, supported 
her. Many Senators from the Judiciary Committee, including Senator 
Hatch, supported her. James Rogan supported her. And yet he put this 
hold on her. Finally, we were able to get him to back off. For 2 years, 
that court ran without Margaret Morrow on it, and now she serves 
proudly after getting a vote of 67-28.
  He was so out of line on that. A strong majority supported Margaret 
Morrow.
  You have heard the stories: Ronnie White, James Hormel, Margaret 
Morrow, human beings with faces and hearts and pulses who were hurt by 
John Ashcroft, hurt deeply by John Ashcroft. But there is more.
  Bill Lann Lee, was John Ashcroft fair to him when he was nominated to 
be Assistant U.S. Attorney for Civil Rights? When he arrived here in 
1997, he had a long record at the NAACP of fighting discrimination. Yet 
even Lee's former corporate opponents came to lobby for him--what a 
wonderful person he is.
  He supported the law, the law of giving people a chance, affirmative 
action laws. John Ashcroft did not like that law, which, by the way, he 
will be sworn now to uphold. He blocked Bill Lann Lee's nomination, and 
Bill Lann Lee never got an up-or- down vote. He served as an acting 
head of that division.
  I know the story of Bill Lann Lee. He is an incredible example of the 
American dream. He worked his way up from the bottom of the economic 
ladder. His father ran a laundry where they sweated every single day to 
help their son get an education, and this is the way he was treated in 
the greatest nation in the world. It was hurtful. It was very hurtful 
to Bill Lann Lee. It was very hurtful to the people in this country who 
were looking to Bill Lann Lee as a role model.
  This is what John Ashcroft said about Bill Lann Lee:

       We don't need an individual who is trying to go against the 
     Constitution as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. We 
     need someone who is going to say I'm here to provide the 
     administration.

  Bill Lann Lee said under oath that he would uphold the Constitution, 
just as John Ashcroft is saying he will. Yet he did not give Bill Lann 
Lee a chance. He hurt this man deeply.
  That is a story of looking into the heart of someone. I think you 
have to be judged by not only your words but your deeds in totality, so 
I have not given one example; I have given four. I could give more. I 
will not.
  I want to talk about the Southern Partisan. I want to talk about the 
fact that John Ashcroft as a Senator in 1998 gave an interview to the 
Southern Partisan magazine. Put in a most straightforward way, this 
magazine promotes racism.
  This is a picture of a T-shirt that is advertised in this magazine. 
This is a portrait of Abraham Lincoln, and they sell this on a T-shirt. 
This is Latin. It says: ``Thus be it to tyrants.'' It is a picture of 
Lincoln: ``Thus be it to tyrants.'' Those are the words that were 
uttered by the assassin of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln was quoted 
by Senator Brownback, and he made a beautiful speech. This is sold by 
this magazine. The words of John Wilkes Booth are underneath: ``Thus be 
it always to tyrants.''
  In his interview, John Ashcroft praised the magazine and its mission:

       Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've 
     got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots. 
     Traditionalists should do more. I've really got to do more. 
     We've all got to stand up and speak in this respect or else 
     we will be taught that these people were giving their lives, 
     ascribing their sacred fortunes and their honor to some 
     perverted agenda.

  Now he says he did not know about the magazine. Let's look at that.
  First of all, there was an amazing exchange in the committee between 
Senator Biden and John Ashcroft. Senator Biden gave John Ashcroft the 
opportunity to denounce this magazine. He said: What do you think of it 
now that you know what they do, what they stand for, the T-shirt, and 
the rest? John Ashcroft basically did not answer him. Senator Biden was 
taken aback because he had the opportunity to say: This is a racist 
magazine; I'll never talk to them. He did not say it. He said: I 
deplore what is deplorable. That was his response to Senator Biden.
  He had a chance. He said:

       On the magazine, frankly, I can't say that I knew very much 
     at all. . . . I've given magazine interviews to lots of 
     people . . . and I regret that speaking to them is being used 
     to imply that I agree with their views.

  If you go back to what he said when he spoke to them, he said:

       Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've 
     got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots. 
     . . .

  So how does he say he never heard of the magazine when you look at 
his quote and he knows of the magazine, because he says:

       Your magazine also helped set the record straight. You've 
     got a heritage of doing that, of defending southern patriots. 
     . . .

  And it goes on. It does not ring true.
  He had a chance in simple language to say: I will never talk to them 
again. He did not do it.
  We could look at Bob Jones University, and I will not go into the 
details of that, but we have to believe that he knew about the racist 
policies when he accepted their degree because those policies were the 
subject of a huge Supreme Court case that was decided when he was 
attorney general of Missouri.
  The case was Bob Jones v. the United States. It was on the front page 
of the major newspapers when it was decided. In that case, the Supreme 
Court reversed the university's tax exempt status because of the racist 
policy that John Ashcroft said he did not know about. But he was an 
attorney general at the time that decision came down.
  Again, I think he could have said more at the hearings to distance 
himself from the university's policies.
  These are the things that say to me, out of the 280 million Americans 
in our country, there has to be someone who is better suited for this 
job.
  We have heard a lot about a woman's right to choose. Regardless of 
your feelings on it--I happen to be of a mind that the Government has 
no business telling a woman about her reproductive health care in the 
beginning of a pregnancy, which is Roe v. Wade; that is the law of the 
land--I would hope we could come together when it comes to preventing 
unwanted pregnancies by contraception. That seems to be an area of 
common ground where both sides could come together. Because if you do 
not get pregnant, if you do not want a child, you do not have to have 
an abortion. It works. It will lower the number of abortions.
  But when John Ashcroft was attorney general, he sued nurses who were 
giving contraception to women. Let me repeat that. He went against 
settled law in Missouri when he was attorney general. He tried to stop 
nurses, through the courts, from handing out contraception. It was 
settled law that those nurses could do it, but John Ashcroft argued 
that Missouri law did not allow for it.
  The Missouri Supreme Court ruled against John Ashcroft. It strongly 
pointed out his interpretation was out

[[Page 1146]]

of step with settled law. This is what the Missouri Supreme Court had 
to say:

       We believe the acts of the nurses [providing 
     contraceptives, breast and pelvic exams] are precisely the 
     types of acts the legislature contemplated. . . .
       The Court believes that it is significant that while at 
     least forty states have modernized and expanded their nursing 
     practice laws during the past fifteen years, neither counsel 
     nor the Court have discovered any case challenging nurses' 
     authority to act as the nurses herein acted.

  In other words, in 40 States, not one other attorney general ever 
sued nurses and tried to stop them from providing these services to 
women. On this occasion, it was in rural clinics. So when John Ashcroft 
says he is going to uphold settled law, I am sure he said that when he 
was the attorney general of Missouri.
  Then, if we look at other issues concerning women, he also sued the 
National Organization for Women. When he was an attorney general in the 
1980s, he sued NOW to stop their campaign to win ratification of the 
Equal Rights Amendment. Now, maybe he does not agree with the Equal 
Rights Amendment, he does not want women to be equal through the Equal 
Rights Amendment. Maybe he does not believe it is necessary, for 
whatever reason. But to sue a woman's organization for 3 years--losing 
at every step but never giving up; taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court 
after the Circuit Court of Appeals, and they all rejected his 
arguments--it seems to me, since that was also settled law in a case 
from 1961, we have to question: What does he mean when he says he will 
accept settled law?
  Voluntary desegregation: Others have spoken about this. How do you 
fight a voluntary desegregation plan that everyone came together and 
said was a good way to help our kids? Well, he figured out how to do 
it. And I will tell you, his rhetoric was very strong. He called the 
voluntary plan an ``outrage against human decency'' and an ``outrage 
against the children of this State.''
  The conservative Economist magazine described Ashcroft this way--and 
it turned out he and his opponent were both arguing:

       The campaign quickly degenerated into a context over who 
     was most opposed to the plan for voluntary racial 
     desegregation . . .

  The court roundly criticized then-Attorney General Ashcroft. They 
said:

       The court can only draw one conclusion . . . the state has, 
     as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the 
     authority of this court.

  From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1982, Ashcroft was ``making 
himself a familiar advocate before the Supreme Court, most often as the 
antagonist of civil rights interests.''
  So here you have a nominee, who is supposed to firmly uphold the 
civil rights laws, being called an antagonist of civil rights interests 
in an article in 1982.
  This was an election where many African American voters believed they 
were disenfranchised. They are looking at this Senate and thinking they 
cannot believe that this is the individual George Bush would put before 
us. Why do I say that? Because there is a case on point about voter 
registration. While John Ashcroft was Missouri Governor, he vetoed a 
bill that would have allowed volunteers to register voters in the 
largely African American city of St. Louis; in other words, a bill to 
allow the League of Women Voters to encourage voter registration.
  The very interesting bottom line of this case is, in the white parts 
of the county he allowed this voter registration to go on. When he 
vetoed the first bill, he said he had a problem with it. But then he 
vetoed it again. It seems to me that anyone who believes that we ought 
to have our voting rights be sacred in this Nation would have problems 
voting for this nominee.
  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted at the time:

       Gov. John Ashcroft has decided that [some citizens] . . . 
     should continue to be treated differently from others on the 
     matter of voter registration.

  So, Mr. President, I am sure you are glad to hear I am about to sum 
up, to finish. What I have tried to do in this presentation is to speak 
from my heart because that is what George Bush asked me to do. He said: 
Look in your heart and look in the heart of John Ashcroft. I believe 
that he meant for me to do that.
  In my advise and consent responsibility, I have looked into the heart 
of John Ashcroft. And how can I do it? By looking at the way he treats 
other people. My mother taught me to do that. You can say a lot of 
things in life. You can tell your kids, be good to your neighbor, but 
if they see you walk past your neighbor, if your neighbor is lying on 
the street, they know something is not right.
  When I talk to people and see people such as Ronnie White--a 
beautiful family man, qualified, the American dream personified--
humiliated on the Senate floor, I cannot look away from that. When I 
see Margaret Morrow hanging and twisting in the wind for 2 years 
because John Ashcroft put a secret hold on her, I have to look at that. 
When I see James Hormel, a distinguished man, humiliated, hurt, turned 
down for an Ambassadorship because he happened to be a gay man, I 
cannot look away from that. And when I see Bill Lann Lee, whose father 
and mother sweated in a laundry so that he could get the American 
dream--when I see him hurt and humiliated--I cannot look away from 
that.
  Maybe my colleagues can, and they see other things that I do not see. 
I respect them so much. And I respect their right to feel strongly, 
just as I do on the other side of this issue. But I have taken this 
time because I feel so deeply about this.
  The Attorney General is the Nation's guardian of civil rights, of 
human rights, of women's rights, of the environment, of sensible gun 
laws. He or she must be moderate to bring the country together. What 
did John Ashcroft say about moderates? He said:

       There are two things you find in the middle of the road: A 
     moderate and a dead skunk, and I don't want to be either.

  Mr. President, I have looked into the heart of John Ashcroft. I do 
not think he is the right person for this job.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, another topic that keeps being brought up 
again and again is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge Ronnie White. 
I am concerned that some of my colleagues continue to denigrate Senator 
Ashcroft for his involvement in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. 
It has been said that Senator Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record 
and wrongly painted him as pro-criminal and anti-law enforcement.
  But there were many reasons to vote against confirmation for Judge 
White. In fact, every Republican in the Senate did so. I have reviewed 
Judge White's record and several of his dissenting opinions in death 
penalty cases, and I can understand Senator Ashcroft's opposition to 
Judge White's nomination to the federal bench.
  For instance in the Johnson case, the defendant was convicted on four 
counts of first-degree murder for killing three officers and the wife 
of the sheriff. Johnson was sentenced to death on all counts. On 
appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Judge White 
dissented arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of 
counsel. Judge White thought that Johnson deserved further opportunity 
to present a defense based on post-traumatic stress disorder. But the 
majority showed that here was no credible evidence that Johnson 
suffered from this disorder. Rather, it was clear that defense counsel 
had fabricated a story that was quickly disproved at trial. For 
instance, defense counsel stated that Johnson had placed a perimeter of 
cans and strings and had deflated the tires of his car. At trial, 
testimony revealed that police officers had taken these actions, not 
the defendant.
  Further, Congressman Kenneth Hulshof, the prosecutor in the Johnson 
case testified at Senator Ashcroft's hearings that it was almost 
impossible to make out an argument for ineffective assistance of 
counsel because the defendant ``hired counsel of his own choosing. He 
picked from our area in mid-Missouri what . . . I referred to as a 
dream team.''

[[Page 1147]]

  Judge White has every right to pen a dissent in Johnson and other 
cases involving the death penalty. Similarly, every Senator has the 
duty to evaluate these opinions as part of Judge White's judicial 
record. And that's just what Senator Ashcroft did. At no time did 
Senator Ashcroft derogate Judge White's background.
  I consider Judge White to be a decent man with an impressive personal 
background. He has accomplished a great deal and come up from humble 
beginnings. But his record of dissenting in death penalty cases was 
sufficiently troubling to cause Senator Ashcroft and others to oppose 
the nomination.
  Many of my colleagues have impugned Senator Ashcroft's motives for 
voting against Judge White. But Judge White's nomination was strongly 
opposed by many of Senator Ashcroft's constituents and also by major 
law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association 
and the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs.
  Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by 
Johnson, testified, ``I opposed Judge White's nomination to the federal 
bench, an I asked Senator Ashcroft to join me because of Judge White's 
opinion on a death penalty cease. . . in his opinion, Judge White urged 
that Johnson be given a second chance at freedom. I cannot understand 
his reasoning. I know that the four people killed were not given a 
second chance.''
  Finally, many of my colleagues have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's 
opposition to Judge White was underhanded and done with stealth. Well, 
Senator Ashcroft voted against Judge White's nomination in committee. 
He expressed his disapproval at that time. If he had held up the 
nomination in committee without allowing it to proceed to the floor he 
would have been criticized for delay.
  Indeed, Senator Boxer pleaded during a debate about several judges 
including Ronnie White,

       I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all 
     things that ace good in our country, give people a chance. If 
     you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with 
     something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We 
     can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It 
     is wrong. You would not do it to a friend.--Cong. Rec. S. 
     11871, Oct. 4, 1999.

  Thus, Senator Ashcroft was between a rock and a hard place as to how 
to raise his legitimate concerns about Judge White.
  Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity, one of the most 
qualified nominees for Attorney General that we have ever seen. His 
opposition to Judge White was principled and in keeping with the proper 
exercise of the advice and consent duty of a senator. I regret that we 
have needed to revisit this issue at such great length.
  Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I ask unanimous consent to have an op-ed piece, which 
responds to one of the points that Senator Boxer was raising, be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    John Ashcroft, American Partisan

                          (By Thomas G. West)

       Frustrated by the absence of any real dirt on Senator John 
     Ashcroft, his ideological enemies have descended into 
     dishonesty and distortion. He is being attacked as a racist 
     and a defender of slavery. A quotation from his 1998 
     interview with ``Southern Partisan'' magazine has been 
     denounced with particular venom.
       Those circulating that quotation suggest that Ashcroft was 
     praising the confederate cause, including slavery. But in 
     context he was praising the antislavery principles of 
     America's Founding Fathers. I should know, because he was 
     talking about my book.
       Here is how the full quotation reads in the original: 
     ``Ashcroft: Revisionism is a threat to the respect that 
     Americans have for their freedoms and the liberty that was at 
     the core of those who founded this country, and when we see 
     George Washington, the founder of our country, called a 
     racist, that is just total revisionist nonsense, a diatribe 
     against the values of America. Have you read Thomas West's 
     book, ``Vindicating the Founders''?
       ``Interviewer: I've met Professor West, and I read one of 
     his earlier books, but not that one.
       ``Ashcroft: I wish I had another copy: I'd send it to you. 
     I gave it away to a newspaper editor. West virtually 
     disassembles all of these malicious attacks the revisionists 
     have brought against our Founders. Your magazine also helps 
     set the record straight. You've got a heritage of doing that, 
     of defending Southern patriots like [Robert E.] Lee, 
     [Stonewall] Jackson and [Jefferson] Davis. Traditionalists 
     must do more. I've got to do more. We've all got to stand up 
     and speak in this respect, or else we'll be taught that these 
     people were giving their lives, subscribing their sacred 
     fortunes and their honor to some perverted agenda.''
       Ashcroft's language is telling. It is a clear reference to 
     the final words of the Declaration of Independence, where the 
     signers ``pledge to one another our lives, our fortunes, and 
     our sacred honor.'' The ``perverted agenda'' to which 
     Ashcroft alludes is the ideology of proslavery, which he is 
     utterly rejecting here.
       ``Southern Partisan'' has been described, correctly, as a 
     magazine that defends the South in the Civil War. But 
     Ashcroft has just pointed out, correctly, that ``liberty''--
     not slavery--was ``at the core'' of the founding, and that 
     Washington was not a racist. His praise of the three 
     Confederate leaders, therefore, must be taken in context as 
     an expression of respect for men of honor and talent, but in 
     no way for the proslavery policies of the Confederacy.
       Ashcroft was deploring, quite sensibly, that people are 
     being taught to despise and hate the Founders, instead of 
     respecting them for creating the first country in history 
     dedicated to the principle that ``all men are created 
     equal.''
       My ``Vindicating the Founders'' shows that this dedication 
     led directly to the abolition of slavery in the northern 
     states, and to the 1787 law banning slavery from the 
     territories north of the Ohio River. These states became the 
     American heartland that later, following Lincoln's lead, 
     stood up for the founding principles, won the Civil War, and 
     abolished slavery throughout the country.
       Contrary to opponents of his nomination, taken as a whole 
     this interview shows that Ashcroft is an admirer of the 
     ``liberty that was at the core'' of the American founding. He 
     is therefore likely to be especially respectful toward the 
     original meaning of the Constitution, which was designed to 
     secure ``the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
     posterity.''
       The deeper point that Ashcroft was pointing to is this: 
     Liberals today generally agree with Bill Clinton, who said in 
     a 1997 speech that Thomas Jefferson's view of equality meant 
     that ``you had to be white, you had to be male, and . . . you 
     had to own property.'' Because Clinton and other liberals 
     misunderstand the founding so badly, they believe in a 
     ``living Constitution'' whose meaning changes to keep up with 
     the times. Or, as Clinton put it in the same speech, our 
     history is the story of ``new and higher definitions--and 
     more meaningful definitions--of equality and dignity and 
     freedom.''
       John Ashcroft believes in the original definition of 
     equality and liberty: that all human beings deserve to be 
     free and to keep the property they earn with their own hands, 
     rather than have it taken away by a government that pretends 
     to know better than they do what to do with that property.
       In the incoming Bush administration, with Ashcroft as 
     Attorney General, perhaps America has a chance to go back to 
     the genuine principles of the Founders, without trying to 
     come up with ``new and higher definitions'' of them, as has 
     been the habit of the past eight years.
       Ashcroft has also been unjustly vilified for a speech at 
     Bob Jones University in 1999. His words, ``We have no king 
     but Jesus,'' have been denounced as narrow and bigoted--as if 
     the Constitution had some sort of religious test that 
     excludes serious Christians from public office. Yet in that 
     speech, as in the ``Southern Partisan'' interview, Ashcroft 
     singled out for his highest praise the Founders' inclusive 
     vision of equal rights for all.
       To his Bob Jones audience, Ashcroft quotes with reverence 
     the Declaration's famous phrases, including ``endowed by our 
     Creator with certain inalienable rights.'' He celebrates the 
     fact that Christians, indeed most Americans, believe these 
     rights come from ``our Creator,'' not from a merely ``civic 
     and temporal'' source in ``Caesar'' or ``the king.'' For, as 
     Ashcroft knows, if our rights come merely from government, 
     then government may one day decide to take them away.
       In this conviction he expresses his agreement with the 
     greatest statesmen and heroes of the past, from Washington 
     and Jefferson to Lincoln and Reagan.
       Based on these two Ashcroft pronouncements--his ``Southern 
     Partisan'' interview, and his Bob Jones speech--a fair-minded 
     reader would conclude that Ashcroft is just the kind of man 
     that America needs as its next Attorney General: a man 
     devoted, to the depth of his heart, to the great principle of 
     the equality of men that has made America the greatest nation 
     on earth.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to discuss some civil rights issues 
surrounding the nomination of Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney General. 
At the hearings and in supplemental questions, my colleagues have 
raised issues concerning Senator Ashcroft's plans for the Civil Rights 
Division of the Department of Justice should he be confirmed as 
Attorney General. Let me

[[Page 1148]]

say that I am confident that Senator Ashcroft will fight for the civil 
rights and liberties of all Americans. He believes that everyone 
deserves an opportunity to succeed and that those at the bottom of our 
society may need a helping hand.
  Senator Ashcroft strongly supports ``affirmative access'' programs. 
As he testified, ``We can expand the invitation for people to 
participate aggressively so that no one is denied the capacity to 
participate simply because they didn't know about the opportunities. We 
can work on education, which is the best way for people to have access 
to achievement.''
  Senator Ashcroft wants to encourage achievement and access to 
achievement. He wants to avoid what President Bush called the ``soft 
bigotry of low expectations'' that fuels many race-conscious programs.
  It is true that Senator Ashcroft is skeptical about government 
programs that categorize people by race. Many of these programs would 
be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. 
Pena. That decision stated that all governmental racial classifications 
should be subject to strict scrutiny, that is such classifications must 
be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The 
Supreme Court made clear that there was no such thing as a ``benign'' 
racial classification, and that the government may treat people 
differently because of their race for only the most compelling reason. 
This view of governmental racial classifications comports with the 
development of constitutional protections for civil liberties. Senator 
Ashcroft is solidly with the Supreme Court on this issue.
  Some of my colleagues and certain special interest groups have 
especially questioned Senator Ashcroft's ability to support and defend 
civil liberties because he opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to 
be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Well, all but one 
Republican in the Judiciary Committee opposed this nominee. Let me say 
that I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee and the difficult 
circumstances in which his family came to this country, worked hard, 
and realized the American dream.
  Despite this high personal regard, I was deeply concerned about Mr. 
Lee's nomination because much of his career was devoted to preserving 
constitutionally suspect race-conscious public policies that ultimately 
sort and divide citizens by race. At the time of his hearings, it was 
clear that he would have us continue down the road of racial spoils, a 
road on which Americans are seen principally through the looking glass 
of race. As the Supreme Court has held, that would be unconstitutional.
  Indeed, it is now clear that we were right to oppose the nomination 
of Mr. Lee. Over the Senate's objections, President Clinton made a 
recess appointment of Mr. Lee to head the Civil Rights Division. His 
record has been one of pursuing constitutionally suspect, race-based 
policies at great cost to civil liberties.
  Under Mr. Lee's leadership, the Civil Rights Division has waged a war 
against testing standards in public sector employment based on what he 
considers to be the ``adverse impact'' of such testing. He has 
repeatedly sought to replace objective hiring processes with devices 
designed to boost minorities.
  In 1998, a federal judge, a Carter-appointee, assessed an 
unprecedented $1.8 million attorney fee award against the Civil Rights 
Division for a lawsuit against the city of Torrance, California. The 
Judge found the suit ``frivolous, unreasonable and without 
foundation.'' Despite this embarrassment, the Division continues to 
argue that using test results and hiring those who score best on the 
test is, in the words of one civil rights division deputy, ``the worst 
possible way to select applicants.''
  Furthermore, under Mr. Lee, the Civil Rights Division has continued 
the legal challenge to Proposition 209, a measure that prohibited 
government discrimination of Californians on the basis of race, gender, 
or national origin. These suits continue despite the fact that 
Proposition 209 has repeatedly been upheld by federal courts.
  Finally, under Bill Lann Lee, the Division continued to defend the 
federal contract set-aside struck down by the Supreme Court in Adarand.
  At the time of Mr. Lee's nomination I made a lengthy speech on this 
floor. I regret that Mr. Lee's tenure has shown that my concerns were 
not unfounded. Mr. Lee's actions show that he was unable to distinguish 
the substantive role of being a law enforcer for all citizens from 
being a private activist litigator charged with pushing the limits of 
the law.
  Senator Ashcroft's principled opposition to Mr. Lee has been 
vindicated over time. Not only was Mr. Lee an activist, but he 
continued to pursue his activist agenda once in a position of trust for 
all Americans. The signs that he would do this were clear at his 
hearings at which he narrowly defined the rule in Adarand and could not 
distinguish cases that he would bring as Assistant Attorney General 
from those he brought in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.
  By contrast, Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly distinguished his role 
as a legislator from that of the Attorney General. He understands that 
his political advocacy gets checked at the door of the Department of 
Justice. Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly stated that he would enforce 
the law as it exists to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. 
He is committed to defending the constitutional rights of all 
individuals and has testified that he will make the enforcement of 
civil rights one of his topmost priorities. As Senator Ashcroft stated, 
``My highest priority is to ensure that the Department of Justice lives 
up to its heritage of enforcing the rule of law, and in particular, 
guaranteeing legal rights for the advancement of all Americans. . . . 
[O]ne of my highest priorities at the Department will be to target the 
unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.''
  Senator Ashcroft will be a faithful guardian of our civil liberties, 
and it is for this reason and many others that I wholeheartedly support 
his nomination to be Attorney General.
  Mr. President, some claim that Senator Ashcroft will not uphold the 
law with regard to abortion.
  I think it would be appropriate at this time to set the record 
straight on John Ashcroft's record and commitments regarding abortion--
an issue we have heard a lot about during this confirmation process.
  While Senator Ashcroft's critics have spared nothing in their 
attempts to distort his record and create fear, Senator Ashcroft's 
record over 25 years as a public servant, and his testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing, demonstrate his 
lifelong commitment to the rule of law and his respect for the uniquely 
different roles of a legislator and a law enforcer. Senator Ashcroft 
has proven that he can objectively interpret and enforce the law--even 
where the law may diverge from his personal views on policy. His record 
and character demonstrate that he can be, as he has pledged, ``law 
oriented and not results oriented.''
  Contrary to the fear-mongering of his critics, Senator Ashcroft will 
enforce the law protecting a woman's right to an abortion. He was very 
straightforward in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee when he 
stated that, in his view, Roe versus Wade is settled law and that the 
Supreme Court's decisions upholding Roe ``have been multiple, they have 
been recent and they have been emphatic.'' He said he would enforce the 
law as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
  When asked whether he would seek to change the Supreme Court's 
interpretation of the law, Senator Ashcroft stated that ``it is not the 
agenda of the President-elect to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe. 
And as his Attorney General, I don't think it could be my agenda to 
seek an opportunity to overturn Roe.'' He also stated that as Attorney 
General, it wouldn't be his job to ``try and alter the position of the 
administration.''
  Senator Ashcroft clearly recognized the importance of not devaluing 
``the currency'' of the Solicitor General's Office by taking matters to 
the Supreme

[[Page 1149]]

Court on a basis the Court has already stated it does not want to 
entertain. He noted that in this way, ``accepting Roe and Casey as 
settled law is important, not just to this arena, but important in 
terms of the credibility of the Department.''
  He said he would give advice based upon sound legal analysis, not 
ideology or personal beliefs. He made a commitment that ``if the law 
provides something that is contrary to my ideological belief, I would 
provide them with that same best judgment of the law.''
  From Senator Ashcroft, those are not just words. Throughout his 
career, he has demonstrated that he can do just that.
  For example, as Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft did not 
let his personal opinion on abortion cloud his legal analysis. He 
protected the confidentiality of abortion records maintained by the 
Missouri Department of Health--even when they were requested by pro-
life groups.
  Likewise, when asked to determine whether a death certificate was 
required for all abortions, regardless of the age of the fetus, 
Attorney General Ashcroft--despite his personal view that life begins 
at conception--issued an opinion that Missouri law did not require any 
type of certificate if the fetus was 20 weeks old or less. His legal 
analysis was fair and objective and unaffected by what his policy views 
may have been.
  There has also been, what I consider, unfounded skepticism over 
whether Senator Ashcroft would vigorously enforce clinic access and 
antiviolence statutes. Being pro-life is not inconsistent with opposing 
violence at clinics. The primary focus of the opposition has been the 
Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act 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 antiviolence laws. He stated clearly that 
he would enforce these laws ``vigorously'', that he would investigate 
allegations ``thoroughly'' and that he would devote resources to these 
cases on a ``'priority basis.''
  He further stated that he would maintain the appropriate task forces 
which have been created to facilitate enforcement of clinic access and 
antiviolence statutes.
  These statements are totally consistent with Senator Ashcroft's long 
record of speaking out against violence and his belief that the first 
amendment does not give anyone the right to ``violate the person, 
safety, and security'' of another.
  Senator Ashcroft has always spoken out against clinic violence and 
other forms of domestic terrorism. He has written to constituents about 
his strong opposition to violence and his belief that, regardless of 
his personal views on abortion, people should be able to enter abortion 
clinics safely. He voted for Senator Schumer's amendment to the 
bankruptcy bill that made debts incurred as a result of abortion clinic 
violence non-dischargeable in bankruptcy.
  Senator Ashcroft has always condemned criminal violence at abortion 
clinics--or anywhere for that matter--and believes people who commit 
these acts of violence and intimidation should be punished to the 
fullest extent of the law. As Attorney General he'll do just that.
  Access to contraceptives is another area that I think Senator 
Ashcroft has been unfairly criticized. His critics make dire 
predictions about the future that are totally unsupported by Senator 
Ashcroft's testimony. Senator Ashcroft could not have testified any 
more clearly on the issue of contraception. He stated that: ``I think 
individuals who want to use contraceptives have every right to do so . 
. . [and] I think that right is guaranteed by the Constitution of the 
United States.'' He also testified that he would defend current laws 
should they be attacked. What more can he say? Is there anything a pro-
life nominee could say to please the pro-abortion interest groups?
  Senator Ashcroft's opponents take great pains to say that they do not 
oppose him on ideological grounds. Well you could have fooled me. Their 
argument is that someone who has been active in advocating a particular 
policy position cannot set that aside and enforce the law fairly. I 
don't believe they can be serious. Does this mean that a person of 
character and integrity who had been active in the pro-choice movement 
could never be Attorney General? And what about the death penalty? 
Could we have no future Attorney General, regardless of how honest and 
well-qualified, who opposed the death penalty? Of course not. In fact, 
Republicans voted to confirm Janet Reno, despite her personal 
opposition to the death penalty, because she said she could still 
enforce the law even though she disagreed with it.
  If this is not about ideology, then we should get to the business of 
confirming Senator Ashcroft. He has given strong and specific 
assurances to the Senate on abortion and other questions. These 
assurances are backed up by his proven record as Missouri attorney 
general and Governor. Most importantly, they are backed up by Senator 
Ashcroft's personal integrity and decency--characteristics he holds as 
is known personally by almost every Member of this body.
  Members know John Ashcroft is a man of his word--it's time that they 
act on it and confirm him as Attorney General.
  Mr. President, some have criticized Senator Ashcroft's handling of 
voter registration in Missouri. Some of my colleagues have charged that 
as Governor, John Ashcroft essentially blocked two bills that would 
have required the city of St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners to 
deputize private voter registration volunteers. These bills were 
opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in St. Louis. Opposition 
included the bipartisan St. Louis County Board of Election 
Commissioners, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Tom Villa, and 
St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach. Tom Villa was a noted 
Democratic leader, and St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach was a 
Democrat who was the prosecutor in the St. Louis area. All of these 
people opposed the legislative plan. The recommendations of these 
officials was one of the reasons that John Ashcroft vetoed the bills.
  It was insinuated during the hearings that these actions were taken 
out of some kind of partisan or racial motivation, because the city of 
St. Louis is predominantly black and Democratic. But this implication 
is seriously discredited by the history of voter registration in St. 
Louis and earlier Federal court cases.
  The city board has a long history of refusing to deputize private 
voter registration deputies, long before John Ashcroft appointed anyone 
to that board. Indeed, in 1981 a lawsuit was filed against the members 
of the St. Louis board concerning the failure to deputize voter 
registration deputies. The Federal District Court for the Eastern 
District of Missouri explicitly rejected charges of racial animus. The 
court found that the board properly refused to deputize volunteers to 
prevent fraud and ensure impartiality and administrative efficiency. 
Moreover, these conclusions were sustained by the eighth circuit, in an 
opinion by Judge McMillan, a prominent African-American jurist.
  Some have also claimed that then-Governor Ashcroft refused to appoint 
a diverse group of commissioners to the election board. This is simply 
untrue. Mr. Jerry Hunter, the former labor secretary of Missouri, 
testified that Senator Ashcroft worked hard to increase black 
representation on the St. Louis City Election Board, but his efforts 
were stalled by State senators.
  Mr. Hunter testified that, ``Governor Ashcroft's first black nominee 
for the St. Louis City Election Board was rejected by the black State 
senator, because that person did not come out of his organization.'' 
When then-Governor Ashcroft came up with a second black attorney, this 
candidate was also rejected by two black State senators. As Mr. Hunter 
stated, ``[F]rom the beginning, any efforts to make changes in the St. 
Louis City Election Board were forestalled because the state senators

[[Page 1150]]

wanted people from their own organization.'' Apparently for these State 
senators the political spoils system was more important than the voters 
of St. Louis.
  Finally, my colleagues imply that these voter registration issues 
will make Senator Ashcroft less able to deal with allegations of voting 
improprieties resulting from the Florida vote in the Presidential 
election. Yet Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly testified, ``I will 
investigate any alleged voting rights violation that has credible 
evidence. . . . I have no reason not to go forward, and would not 
refuse to go forward for any reason other than a conclusion that there 
wasn't credible evidence to pursue the case.''
  Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have continued to express 
concerns about Senator Ashcroft's actions with regard to conducting a 
telephone interview with a magazine called Southern Partisan. Their 
concern is what message that interview might have sent to the country. 
It is clear, however, that Senator Ashcroft has forthrightly and 
forcefully condemned racism and discrimination, and he has left no 
doubt or ambiguity regarding his views on that matter.
  During his confirmation hearings, Senator Ashcroft said, ``Let me 
make something as plain as I can make it. Discrimination is wrong. 
Slavery was abhorrent. Fundamental to my belief in freedom and liberty 
is that these are God-given rights.'' And in his responses to written 
questions, he said, ``I reject racism in all its forms. I find racial 
discrimination abhorrent, and against everything that I believe in.'' 
It is clear to me that John Ashcroft believes in equal treatment under 
the law for everyone. He believes in it, and he has committed to fight 
to make it a reality for all Americans.
  Now, as to the magazine itself, Senator Ashcroft contritely admitted 
that he does not know very much about it. He confessed that he should 
have done more research about it before talking to them. And he said 
that he did not intend his telephone interview--or any other interview 
he has participated in during his career--as an automatic endorsement 
of the editorial positions of those publications. John Ashcroft went 
even further than that. He said, ``I condemn those things which are 
condemnable'' about Southern Partisan magazine. This was a strong 
statement against any unacceptable ideas discussed in that publication. 
And it was the strongest statement possible from someone who did not 
personally know the facts.
  Despite Senator Ashcroft's contriteness and strong words, some 
Senators and interest groups have demanded that Senator Ashcroft go out 
on a limb and add his derision based upon an acceptance at face value 
of all the negative allegations concerning that magazine. In my 
opinion, Mr. President, this led to one of the most profound moments of 
the confirmation hearings. A member of the committee pushed Senator 
Ashcroft to label the Southern Partisan magazine as ``racist''--even 
after Senator Ashcroft explained that he did not know whether that was 
true. The profound part was John Ashcroft's response. He said, ``I know 
they've been accused of being racist. I have to say this, Senator: I 
would rather be falsely accused of being a racist than to falsely 
accuse someone else of being a racist.'' This exchange tells volumes 
about Senator Ashcroft's moral character, deep sense of fairness, and 
his fitness for the office of Attorney General. It would have been a 
lot easier for him just to say, ``Yes, I agree with anyone who uses 
that term about someone else.'' Doing so would have saved him from 
further bashing by the committee and the press. It would have been 
politically expedient. But John Ashcroft choose to take the high road, 
not to heap disdain onto something he didn't know about just because it 
would have suited his interests to do so. This was a vivid example of 
good judgment and good character.
  This is not to say that John Ashcroft defended anything about the 
magazine. Clearly he did not. In fact, when Senator Biden asked him 
whether the magazine was condemnable because it sells T-shirts that 
imply that Lincoln's assassin did a good thing, he answered: ``If they 
do that, I condemn it.'' And he clarified that ``Abraham Lincoln is my 
favorite political figure in the history of this country.'' What John 
Ashcroft did was state his absolute intolerance for racism and bigotry, 
and he did so honestly without creating a straw man, a scapegoat, or a 
fall guy.
  I think we need to ask anyone who is not satisfied with John 
Ashcroft's answers what they really want. What do his accusers think 
justice is? I surely hope that no one in this body would say that 
justice means the knee-jerk condemnation of things they do not know 
about, so long as that condemnation is politically expedient.
  Mr. President, I think this issue has shed light on why John Ashcroft 
will be a fair and principled Attorney General. As he told the 
Judiciary Committee, ``I believe racism is wrong. I repudiate it. I 
repudiate racist organizations. I'm not a member of any of them. I 
don't subscribe to them. And I reject them.'' These are straightforward 
words from an honest man. I look forward to having such a man running 
our Department of Justice.
  Mr. President, I heard one of my colleagues today criticize Senator 
Ashcroft's view of the second amendment. While I disagree with these 
vague criticisms, I do believe that one of the biggest challenges that 
Senator Ashcroft will face as Attorney General is to increase the 
prosecution of federal gun crimes. Where there is little consensus in 
Congress regarding new gun control legislation, there is widespread 
consensus that current gun laws can and should be prosecuted more 
vigorously.
  While the Clinton administration has increased the regulation of 
licensed gun dealers, it has not increased the prosecution of Federal 
gun crimes in a like manner. For example:
  Between 1992 and 1998, prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm 
in the commission of a felony dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to 
approximately 3,800.




  It is a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school grounds, but the 
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only eight cases under this law 
in 1998, even though more than 6,000 students brought guns to school. 
The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only five such cases in 1997.
  It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a juvenile, but the 
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases under this law in 
1998 and only five in 1997.
  It is a Federal crime to transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault 
weapon, but the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only four cases 
under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997.
  As his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear, 
Senator Ashcroft will reverse this trend and make gun prosecutions a 
priority. In the Senate, John Ashcroft was one of the leaders in 
fighting gun crimes. For example, in response to the decline in gun 
prosecutions by the Justice Department, Senator Ashcroft sponsored 
legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional Federal 
prosecutors and agents to increase the Federal prosecution of criminals 
who use guns.
  In addition, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to prohibit 
juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition 
clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Ashcroft juvenile assault 
weapons ban in May of 1999.
  Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation that prohibits any person 
convicted of even misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing 
a firearm, and he voted for legislation to extend the Brady Act to 
prohibit persons who commit violent crimes as juveniles from possessing 
firearms.
  In order to close the so-called ``gun show loophole,'' Senator 
Ashcroft voted for legislation, which I authored, to require mandatory 
instant background checks for all firearm purchases at gun shows.
  Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to require a 5-year mandatory 
minimum prison sentence for Federal gun crimes and for legislation to 
encourage schools to expel students who bring guns to school.
  Senator Ashcroft voted for the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act that 
prohibits

[[Page 1151]]

the possession of a firearm in a school zone, and he voted for 
legislation to require gun dealers to offer child safety locks and 
other gun safety devices for sale.
  As a former state attorney general and president of the National 
Association of Attorneys General, Senator Ashcroft knows that criminal 
laws are useless if not enforced. Given his proven commitment to 
fighting gun violence, there can be little doubt that Attorney General 
Ashcroft will make gun prosecutions a priority for the Justice 
Department.
  Mr. President, I would like to address one more issue concerning 
Senator Ashcroft's position on gun enforcement. Some special-interest 
groups have made the ridiculous assertion that an Ashcroft Justice 
Department would not defend the constitutionality of certain gun laws. 
As Senator Ashcroft noted at his hearing, there is a longstanding 
policy for the Solicitor General's office to defend Federal statutes in 
court if there is a reasonable basis for doing so. In other words, the 
Justice Department will defend Federal statutes even if that particular 
administration does not agree with the statute as a matter of policy. 
This longstanding policy applies to all Federal statutes, except those 
which infringe on the prerogatives of the President. This longstanding 
policy promotes the integrity and the consistent administration of 
Federal law.
  At his confirmation hearing, in response to Senator Kennedy, Senator 
Ashcroft pledged to ``vigorously defend'' the constitutionality of the 
ban on possession of firearms by persons convicted of domestic 
violence. In fact, Senator Ashcroft voted for the legislation that 
prohibited persons convicted of domestic violence from possessing 
firearms. And in response both to Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, 
Senator Ashcroft pledged to maintain the Justice Department's position 
of defending the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban. In 
short, Senator Ashcroft made clear that the Justice Department would 
defend and enforce Federal gun laws whether or not he agreed with such 
laws as a matter of policy.
  Senator Ashcroft's record as Missouri attorney general supports his 
pledge to defend and enforce gun laws regardless of his personal 
beliefs. For example, as the attorney general of Missouri, John 
Ashcroft issued an opinion which interpreted state law to prohibit 
prosecuting attorneys from carrying concealed weapons, even though some 
prosecuting attorneys conducted their own investigations and faced 
dangerous situations. This is a classic example of John Ashcroft 
upholding the law even when he did not agree with it.
  In short, John Ashcroft is a man of integrity and great ability. With 
John Ashcroft as Attorney General, I am confident that the Justice 
Department will enforce Federal gun laws with unprecedented zeal.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today, as many of my colleagues 
have done, in support of my friend and our friend, Senator John 
Ashcroft, to be Attorney General of the United States.
  It is always interesting, as the distinguished Senator from 
California has indicated, to look at people's views in a situation such 
as this. And I must say that while I respect the Senator's views and 
her comments, I guess what I will describe as allegations, I do have a 
different view. This does not add up to the John Ashcroft I know as a 
neighbor.
  We have heard the debate. It has been considerable. We have all heard 
the charge that Senator Ashcroft is somehow not fit to serve as 
Attorney General. But that really does not square with the John 
Ashcroft I know.
  We in Kansas have watched our neighbor and observed his record for a 
great number of years. We think we know this man. Again, I don't think 
the record really squares with the charges and the allegations that 
have been tossed about for the last several weeks.
  As Missouri attorney general, John Ashcroft strictly enforced laws 
that differed from his own beliefs. I repeat that. That seems to be the 
crucial issue here. He strictly enforced laws that actually differed 
from his own beliefs, including firearms--we have heard a lot of talk 
about firearms--whether prosecuting attorneys could actually carry 
concealed weapons; here is one on abortion and that dealt with the 
confidentiality of hospital records on numbers of abortions that were 
performed; whether a death certificate was legally required for fetuses 
under 20 weeks; church and state; the availability of funds for private 
and religious schools, and the distribution of religious materials in 
public schools; quite a few environmental regulations; and also in 
regard to affirmative action.
  If Senator Ashcroft could not honestly enforce the law, wouldn't 
somebody have documented such an instance by now in relation to these 
laws he did enforce that involved strong beliefs with which he did not 
agree? I don't think they have, despite the rhetoric.
  I will talk a little bit about experience. John Ashcroft, regardless 
of your view about his stance on the issues or his ideology or selected 
quotes, is the most experienced Attorney General nominee in American 
history. Boy, that is a strong statement, but consider the facts. Of 
the 67 persons who have served in that office since the founding of the 
Republic, only one, John Ashcroft, has served as State attorney 
general--that is two terms--and Governor of his State--two terms--and 
as a U.S. Senator with service on the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  As Missouri AG, John Ashcroft was elected the president of the 
National Association of Attorneys General. As Missouri Governor, he was 
elected chairman of the National Governors' Association. If John 
Ashcroft's execution of these earlier public trusts was as far ``out of 
the mainstream'' as his critics now claim, wouldn't his fellow State 
attorneys general or Governors, including Democrats, have noticed and 
said something?
  His colleagues universally admire his devotion to his faith. Mr. 
Byrd, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, spoke to that 
earlier today and made some excellent comments. Does that not imply he 
is then a man of conscience, that he will do what he says he will do? 
John Ashcroft himself said:

       My primary personal belief is that the law is supreme; that 
     I don't place myself above the law, and I shouldn't place 
     myself above the law. So it would violate my beliefs to do 
     it.

  He will enforce the law.
  Perhaps the most serious of the charges against the Senator, our 
former colleague, is that he is somehow--and I don't like to use this 
term, but it has been bandied about--a racist because of his opposition 
to Justice Ronnie White. I do not think, in knowing the man and in 
looking at the record very carefully, there is any evidence of racial 
bias in Senator Ashcroft's record.
  Among other initiatives--and this has been said before on the floor, 
and it deserves repeating--this is a man who signed Missouri's first 
hate crimes statute into law. He signed into law the bill establishing 
a Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday in Missouri. He appointed the first 
African American woman to the Missouri Court of Appeals. He has been a 
leader in opposition to racial profiling.
  In my personal view, there were good reasons that Senator Ashcroft 
opposed the White confirmation and that every Republican Senator then 
voted no. Justice White, during his tenure on the Missouri Supreme 
Court, was notable for his anti-death-penalty and procriminal bias, 
which led to strong bipartisan opposition from the law enforcement 
community to his lifetime appointment to the Federal bench.
  Let me point this out. More than 70 percent of all elected officials 
in Missouri, including sheriffs, are Democrats; and 77 of the 114 
Missouri sheriffs, including many Democrats, were on record in 
unprecedented opposition to Justice White's confirmation. The Missouri 
Federation of Police Chiefs and the National Sheriffs Association were 
also against that confirmation. I voted no. I did not know at the time 
when I cast that vote of Justice White's African American status. I

[[Page 1152]]

didn't know that. As a matter of fact, in talking with fellow 
Republicans, many of us did not know that. John Ashcroft never 
mentioned that. That wasn't the reason we opposed him.
  Senator Ashcroft's opponents accuse him of being out of the 
mainstream and in support of private ownership of firearms. They say 
his support of firearms as a guard against government tyranny is ``talk 
of a madman.'' I think we ought to look at the record.
  As State attorney general and Governor, John Ashcroft conscientiously 
enforced both State and Federal gun laws, even those with which he 
disagreed. That again is the crucial issue. His record does contrast 
sharply with the Clinton Justice Department's failure to enforce 
existing Federal gun laws, even while calling for new ones.
  The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was adopted to preserve 
a traditional right of the people as a guard against government 
encroachment, and that point is beyond dispute. If John Ashcroft is ``a 
madman'' or ``out of the mainstream,'' so were James Madison, Alexander 
Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Noah Webster, Abraham Lincoln, Hubert 
Humphrey, and other notable Americans who held that same view.
  Despite the harsh words being hurled in Washington about this 
nomination, many in our Nation's heartland, in Kansas and Nebraska, 
Oklahoma, Missouri, know, understand, have seen him up close and 
personal as neighbors. We know he is an outstanding public servant and 
will make an outstanding Attorney General.
  Listen to what the Atlanta Journal and Constitution has to say about 
this nomination:

       Ashcroft is certainly conservative, and he is certainly 
     religious. But 88 percent of his fellow citizens report that 
     religion is important or very important in their lives, a 
     figure that has barely varied over the past 20 years. Seventy 
     percent or more believe the nation would be better off if it 
     were more religious, and 79 percent favor prayer or at least 
     a moment of silence in the public schools. So who's out of 
     the mainstream?
       Ashcroft strongly opposes abortion on moral grounds; 55 
     percent of the people say it is ``morally wrong most of the 
     time.'' The nominee would like to see sharp restrictions on 
     when an abortion would be legal; only 28 percent of Americans 
     think it should be legal under any circumstances. He 
     absolutely opposes partial-birth abortion; so do 66 percent 
     of Americans. Who are the extremists on this issue?
       Actually, none of these attacks on Ashcroft's beliefs has 
     much real meaning because he has already demonstrated, as 
     Attorney General of Missouri, that he is perfectly capable of 
     following the law as it is, rather than as he might wish it 
     were.

  Again, that is the basic point I make.

       Maybe it is difficult for his opponents to believe that he 
     could so carefully separate his personal views from his task 
     as chief enforcer of the nation's laws because they have so 
     much trouble doing that themselves. But we believe he can and 
     will do so and that the American mainstream which was invoked 
     so frequently at his hearings will be well served and 
     satisfied with the job that he will do.

  I certainly agree that America will be well served with Senator 
Ashcroft's confirmation by the Senate. I intend to vote for him. I urge 
my colleagues to do the same.
  One other thing: John Ashcroft and I spent a little time together--3 
days--up in the wilds of Alaska. We were up there at the invitation of 
Senator Ted Stevens. There is a fishing contest up there. The Presiding 
Officer is very skilled, by the way, in taking part in that whole 
fishing contest. The proceeds are used to improve the habitat on the 
Kenai River.
  We had a great deal to say to each other, both Senator Ashcroft and 
myself, when we were fishing in that kind of circumstance. We didn't 
talk about anything that involved racism, or Bob Jones University, or 
selected quotes, or whatever; we talked as individuals and as friends. 
I did not hear a bitter or prejudicial word. We talked about what 
things mean in life basically. We talked about family and of the Lord's 
creation. We talked as fellow men. We talked about the privilege to 
serve in the Senate. We told a lot of stories about human beings, we 
talked a lot about fishing, and we talked a lot about friendship. I 
think when we can spend time with a man in that kind of circumstance, 
we really get to know him.
  Personally, I just want to say I am having a lot of trouble figuring 
out whom the critics are talking about in regard to the John Ashcroft I 
know and respect. I think he will make a great Attorney General. And, 
quite frankly, I think at the end of the day when he reaches out in an 
act of friendship and trust across the aisle to many of his critics, we 
are going to be just fine.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I gather that the order set is that Senator 
Dodd will speak and then Senator Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no order at this point.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order be 
as follows: That following Senator Dodd, Senator Cochran speak, and 
that I be permitted to speak following Senator Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, first of all, at the outset I commend my 
colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, the chairman of the committee, 
Senator Hatch, and Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat, and the 
respective members of the committee for the manner in which they 
conducted the confirmation hearing for the position of Attorney General 
of the United States and for the manner in which they treated John 
Ashcroft, President Bush's nominee for this position.
  It is a difficult job, particularly when the nomination is 
controversial. I think the members of the Judiciary Committee, both 
Republicans and Democrats, conducted themselves with great dignity, and 
I commend them for it.
  Mr. President, I am going to vote to confirm John Ashcroft as U.S. 
Attorney General. I would like to take a few minutes of the Senate's 
time to explain my reasons.
  Let me say at the outset that I hope Mr. Ashcroft will listen to what 
I have to say here this afternoon. My comments are delivered primarily 
for the benefit of my colleagues and my constituents. But they are also 
directed to John Ashcroft.
  It is important that John Ashcroft understand that my support of his 
nomination is not unqualified. It is given, rather, only upon extensive 
reflection and despite concerns about what kind of Attorney General he 
will make.
  I have listened attentively to the comments of our colleagues both in 
support of and in opposition to this nomination. I respect immensely 
their views. I have considered the practices and precedents of the 
Senate in deferring to presidential cabinet appointments. And I have 
reflected upon my own practices over the past two decades in the Senate 
in considering such appointments. During that time, I have supported an 
overwhelming number of Cabinet nominees. But I have, on the rarest 
occasions, opposed Cabinet nominees supported by the majority of 
members of the Senate and by a majority of my own party. It also bears 
mentioning that I have supported nominees opposed by most members of my 
party and, in one instance, also opposed by a majority of the Senate.
  My concerns about this particular nominee can be reduced to three in 
particular:
  First, whether he will uphold and vigorously enforce our laws--
especially those with which he personally disagrees.
  Second, whether he will treat other people in public life as he 
wishes to be treated--particularly those with whom he may disagree.
  And third, whether he will seek to unify rather than divide our 
nation on critical issues facing our nation, especially the issue of 
racial justice.
  Let me address these concerns in order.
  First, as to John Ashcroft's disposition to enforce the law. The 
Attorney General, as we all know, is our nation's primary law 
enforcement officer. This is an office of unique importance.
  Except perhaps for the president himself, no other individual can or 
should

[[Page 1153]]

do more to protect the public's safety, and to promote the ideal of 
equal justice that is the North Star in our constellation of laws.
  Like many others in public life, John Ashcroft is a man of strong 
convictions. He should be commended, not faulted, for that fact. But 
the question that arises with respect to his nomination for this 
particular office is whether those convictions--on matters such as a 
woman's right to choose and gun safety--might well preclude him from 
enforcing laws on those and similar issues with which he may disagree.
  This is a threshold question. If the nation's top law enforcement 
officer cannot enforce the law, how can anyone say he should 
nevertheless assume the office? If the public cannot know with 
reasonable assurance that their Attorney General will uphold our laws 
vigorously and free of personal bias, then how can we be confident that 
respect for the law will not be weakened?
  If minority Americans, women, and others cannot rely on the Attorney 
General to safeguard their liberties, how can other--indeed, all--
Americans not worry that their rights might one day be placed at risk, 
as well?
  John Ashcroft has minced no words about his positions on issues like 
a woman's right to choose and gun safety. He has advocated positions 
contrary to current law. That is his record. It is also, I might add, 
his right--just as any of us has the right to advocate legal change.
  But that is far from saying that he cannot faithfully enforce the 
law. There is more to his record that deserves consideration. This is a 
man who was elected not once, but five times by a majority of the 
people of his state--as their attorney general, governor, and Senator. 
He has devoted nearly three decades of his life to public service. He 
has, as far as anyone knows, upheld the public's trust throughout that 
time.
  If his nomination were to be decided on the basis of experience 
alone, he would have been among the first, rather than the last, of the 
President's Cabinet nominees to be considered by the Senate.
  As Attorney General and Governor, the record suggests that he did, in 
fact, uphold and advocate laws with which he disagreed. He endorsed 
Democratic proposals to fund new roads and schools. He signed 
legislation to increase the penalties for crimes motivated by bigotry. 
He supported additional resources for legal services for the indigent.
  During his confirmation hearing, he swore under oath that he would 
uphold the law ``so help me God.'' He did so repeatedly and fervently. 
He swore that he would respect Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. 
Casey as the law of the land. He swore to uphold the federal law that 
prevents violence and intimidation at family planning clinics. He 
testified that the Brady law and the assault weapons ban are 
constitutional.
  He also testified that mandatory trigger locks, gun licensing and gun 
registration are all constitutional. And he vowed to hire without 
regard to sexual preference (although he did not, I should add, pledge 
to continue Attorney General Reno's policy of excluding sexual 
preference from security clearance decisions).
  I do not expect that John Ashcroft will change his views as Attorney 
General. But I do, have every right to expect, based upon his 
commitment to God Almighty, before the Judiciary Committee that he will 
keep his word to uphold the laws of the land, even those with which he 
profoundly disagrees.
  Mr. President, I would love to have the complete and total assurance 
he would do that. I cannot honestly conclude that he would not. Thus, 
it compels me to give him the benefit of the doubt because he has taken 
that oath fervently, before God Almighty, and members of the Senate 
Judiciary Committee.
  A second concern I have about Senator Ashcroft's nomination is how he 
has treated other people. I refer very specifically to his conduct 
toward Judge Ronnie White, Ambassador James Hormel, and Bill Lann Lee, 
former head of the Justice Department Civil Rights Division.
  Other colleagues have spoken and will speak about these cases in 
greater detail. Suffice it to say his treatment of their nominations 
went beyond the bounds of good manners and common decency. Too often, 
John Ashcroft refused to meet with these people; he failed to give them 
an opportunity to respond to the allegations, and he distorted, in my 
view, their records.
  In the case of Mr. Hormel, he deemed the wholly private matter of 
sexual orientation to be a factor ``eligible for consideration'' in 
whether he ought to be nominated.
  In the case of Judge White, he actively worked for his defeat--
without first giving him a chance to respond to misleading statements 
made against him on the Senate floor.
  His treatment of these men was cavalier at best--callous and 
calculated at worst. It is particularly troubling because my own 
limited experience with Senator Ashcroft was of a quite different 
nature.
  We worked together on only one issue that I recall--ending the 
embargo on food and medicine to Cuba. In that effort, he took a 
position that engendered considerable opposition in his own caucus. At 
all times, I found him reasonable and trustworthy.
  But there is nevertheless a record here of going after people in a 
harsh and unfair manner. I have always been suspicious of people who 
try to build a political career in part on the bones of their personal 
adversaries. Attacking motives, using people as political scapegoats, 
acting with reckless disregard to the reputations of others--these are 
the kinds of actions that I find contemptible, and that unfortunately 
have become all too common in public life today.
  I hope John Ashcroft will change and turn away from such behavior in 
the future. I believe that he can. As the saying goes, ``There is no 
sinner without a future, and no saint without a past.'' I believe John 
Ashcroft is a decent human being, and I take him at his word.
  If his flaws loom large, it is at least in part because they have 
been aired and examined in the magnifying light of public life.
  And while I will not excuse these flaws--particularly in his 
treatment of others as a public official--I will not engage in the same 
form of pay-back politics that seems to have a growing currency in our 
time. That is not to suggest that those who oppose him will have 
engaged in such tactics. On the contrary, I can well understand the 
principled basis of their opposition.
  That said, I will not do to John Ashcroft what has been done to too 
many people in recent years--including people like Ronnie White, James 
Hormel, and Bill Lann Lee. These individuals do not deserve the 
treatment they received. No one does. Not even John Ashcroft.
  My third and final concern is closely related to the first: whether 
his views on the critical domestic issues of our day would preclude him 
from using his office not just to uphold the law, but to uphold the 
spirit of freedom and equal justice that permeates every one of our 
laws.
  I find it not a little ironic that our new President, who calls 
himself a ``uniter, not a divider'', nominated for Attorney General a 
man who throughout his career has plunged so divisively into the most 
divisive issues of our time: civil rights, women's rights, equal 
rights, gun safety.
  On a different level, I am not in the least surprised. The President 
chose a nominee who reflects his own views on many of these same 
issues. I did not expect him to nominate a Democrat.
  Like nearly all of our colleagues, I have time and again supported 
Cabinet and other nominees with whom I disagreed on critical issues.
  Like them, I have a high degree of tolerance for differences of 
opinions when such nominations come before us--including on such issues 
as choice and guns. Indeed, I supported the nomination of Governor 
Thompson as Secretary of Health and Human Services, despite our strong 
differences on issues related to a woman's right to choose.
  There are certain differences that, I would argue, none of us should 
tolerate. And in that respect, the issue in

[[Page 1154]]

John Ashcroft's public record that concerns me the most is the issue of 
race.
  If I thought John Ashcroft was a racist, I would oppose him as 
strongly as I possibly could on any other issue I have ever faced in my 
25 years of public service. I urge each of our colleagues to do the 
same. We must not tolerate intolerance. But I do not believe that such 
a potent word applies to John Ashcroft. And it is lamentable, to say 
the least, that some outside of the Senate have used it to describe 
him.
  We of all people here in the Senate appreciate that words have 
meaning. So when someone uses a word such as ``racist'' to describe 
actions that, however objectionable, are not racist, then they reduce 
the impact of that word at those moments when it is most applicable.
  While by no means a path-breaker, as governor, John Ashcroft 
appointed more African-American jurists to the bench than any of his 
predecessors. He appointed a number of women, as well. His wife has 
taught at Howard University, a predominantly black institution. People 
of color testified in support of his nomination. Even Judge Ronnie 
White--about whom I will say more in a moment--said that he does not 
believe Senator Ashcroft's opposition to his nomination was racist in 
nature.
  In the Senate, he held a hearing on and condemned the practice of 
racial profiling. He supported twenty-six judicial nominees of African-
American descent.
  And it should not go unmentioned that at least one member of his 
Senate staff--a devout Jew--has written that he found Senator Ashcroft 
not only tolerant, but supportive of his religious beliefs and the 
practical demands that those beliefs placed upon his time.
  Nevertheless, I am deeply troubled by many of his actions in this 
area. Most notably, he vehemently and persistently opposed efforts to 
integrate the St. Louis public schools. In fact, his actions were so 
vexatious that he was nearly cited for contempt for failing to comply 
with court orders to submit a plan to desegregate the schools of that 
fine city. He walked up to the line of disobeying the law--even 
appearing to boast of that fact when he ran for Governor for the first 
time. Those actions trouble me deeply.
  The record suggests that in times past John Ashcroft has submitted to 
the temptation to divide Americans along racial lines.
  The same record also suggests that he is someone without personal 
bias on matters of race, who has tried to heal rather than deepen our 
nation's ancient racial wounds. I hope that it is that John Ashcroft 
who, if confirmed, will lead the Department of Justice. Our nation has 
traveled too far--and we have too far still to go--to relent for even a 
moment in the struggle for equal justice.
  I realize that my vote for John Ashcroft may not be decisive. But I 
hope that it will be informative--informative most of all to John 
Ashcroft. Listen well, John Ashcroft. There are those of us here today 
who could easily vote against your confirmation, but have decided to 
give you a second chance--an opportunity that you denied to Ronnie 
White, Bill Lann Lee, James Hormel, and others.
  I hope this vote will not be in vain. I hope that John Ashcroft will 
uphold his pledge to enforce the laws of our land. I fervently hope 
that he will work to unite rather than divide our nation. And I hope, 
for the sake of our nation and this institution, that this vote will in 
some small measure help bring about an end to the growing predilection 
to treat nominations as ideological battlefields.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Senate 
confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States. 
He is well qualified for the job, having served as attorney general of 
Missouri, as Governor of Missouri, and with distinction as United 
States Senator.
  I first met John Ashcroft in 1992 at the Missouri Republican 
Convention in Springfield, MO, when I was a surrogate for the campaign 
of President George Bush.
  Two years later, John invited me and our colleague from New Mexico, 
Pete Domenici, to come to Missouri and campaign with him when he was a 
candidate for the Senate.
  I was very impressed with John Ashcroft on both occasions. He was an 
articulate and intelligent advocate for commonsense solutions to our 
country's problems. He impressed me as a serious-minded, dedicated, and 
energetic force in shaping public opinion on issues that should be 
addressed by our Government.
  I enjoyed very much being a part of his campaign effort and I was 
delighted when he was elected to the Senate.
  In the Senate he has been very active in the legislative process. He 
has initiated reforms in trade sanctions policy and juvenile justice 
which I have been pleased to support and cosponsor. He is one of the 
most sincerely respected members of our Republican Conference, and I 
consider him to be one of my best friends in the Senate.
  I take issue with the critics who have questioned his candor and his 
character. There is no basis whatsoever for those charges. I am 
surprised and disappointed that he has been characterized so unfairly 
by some in this body.
  I am confident he will prove by his exemplary service as Attorney 
General that he is fair minded, thoughtful, and true to his word, and 
his oath, as he carries out his important duties.
  The President has selected a good man to be Attorney General. He has 
withstood the slings and arrows of his opponents, and he is still 
standing.
  When I was elected to Congress, I was given by my mother a poem by 
Josiah Gilbert Holland, which I have kept close to my desk for the past 
28 years. It says in part:

       God give us men! A time like this demands
       Strong minds, great hearts, true faith, and ready hands;
       whom the lust of office does not kill;
       whom the spoils of office cannot buy;
       who possess opinions and a will;
       who have honor;
       who will not lie;
       who can stand before a demagog and damn his treacherous 
     flatteries without winking!
       Tall men, sun-crowned, who live above the fog, in public 
     duty and in private thinking.

  That poem describes my friend and fellow Senator, John Ashcroft. I am 
proud of his service in the Senate, and I am confident he will make me 
just as proud as he serves our Nation as Attorney General of the United 
States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). Under the previous order, the 
Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, contrary to what some people may believe, 
thinking about how people make this choice and given some of the 
arguments that have surfaced in the course of this nomination, I 
suppose some people might think this is sort of automatic for some 
folks on different sides of the aisle. I want to make clear that I do 
not feel that way at all. I think there are many different 
crosscurrents with respect to anybody's nomination, and I certainly do 
not disagree with the comments of my good friend and colleague, Senator 
Dodd, who spoke a few minutes ago about what has happened to the 
nomination process, or to the review over the course of the last years 
here in this city.
  While I certainly raised questions early on with respect to this 
nominee, I tried, in the course of this process, to refrain from making 
any final judgments until the hearings were held, until questions were 
asked, until Senator Ashcroft himself had an opportunity to lay out the 
record, so to speak.
  I listened very carefully to what Senator Dodd said a moment ago 
about not making choices on ideology. I agree with that. My opposition, 
which I announced yesterday, to Senator Ashcroft's nomination, is not 
based on ideology. I might say, however, that our friends on the other 
side of the aisle in the Republican Party have certainly made ideology 
a significant component of their opposition to many people in the last 
years. Even Senator Ashcroft himself has engaged in a process of making 
judgments about people's fitness to be judges, people's fitness to be 
in the Attorney General's office--Bill Lann Lee--on a matter of 
ideology.

[[Page 1155]]

  In fact, I am told by some members of their party that they, 
themselves, have been the victims of ideological decisionmaking with 
respect to positions they might or might not be able to fill within the 
party itself. Perhaps there is the deepest irony at all, that people 
such as Tom Ridge, Governor of Pennsylvania, or Governor Keating, were 
themselves the subject of bitter dissension within the Republican Party 
over whether or not they might be fit to serve as Vice President of the 
United States, or hold some other office of importance, on the basis of 
ideology.
  So we need to be careful and thoughtful about who comes to that part 
of this debate with clean hands. But I am confident that all of us 
would agree with Senator Dodd, that we would like to see an end to that 
kind of division.
  There is another reason why this is difficult. It is because Senator 
Ashcroft comes to this question with all the advantages of a colleague. 
We know him. Many of us know him well enough to consider him a friend 
in the context of the Senate and like him personally. We certainly 
respect his conviction and his dedication to public service.
  As colleagues have noted, he was elected by the citizens of his State 
as attorney general, as Governor, and as Senator.
  But the truth is, in the final analysis this is not a vote or a 
decision about those personal relationships. This is not a vote about 
personality. And it is certainly not a vote that calls on us to somehow 
ratify the traditional expectations of the Senate, which are understood 
by everyone in the Senate and often are found very confusing to many 
people in the country who measure us and what we do by a different 
standard.
  The office of Attorney General is obviously not a political reward, 
left simply to the victors of national elections or to the 
crosscurrents of ideology within a particular party. It is one of the 
most sensitive positions of public trust. It is an office in which all 
Americans must have a deep and abiding faith that its occupant will 
enforce the laws with equal justice, with fairness, and impartiality.
  In other words, the person who comes to that office must come to it 
with a level of acceptance by the public at large about their moral and 
legal bonafides that they bring to the office in a way that is beyond 
dispute.
  It is very clear that there were others whom a uniting, not a 
dividing, President might have chosen for this job. I think everyone in 
the Senate would agree that if our colleague, former Senator John 
Danforth, had been chosen, you would have had a person who espoused all 
the ideology, the full measure of conservative views--he is an 
Episcopalian minister; he is pro- life--but he would have brought 
absolutely none of the controversy that has come with this nominee, 
which raises doubts--I am not saying certainties but doubts--in the 
minds of many people about this nominee's either willingness or 
capacity to apply the law in the way he has suggested he would in the 
course of these hearings.
  In fact, after closely examining the record set forth in those 
hearings, and the record as attorney general of the State of Missouri, 
I conclude that record makes him the wrong person for this job at this 
time.
  This is, without any question--I think everybody in the Senate would 
agree--a special time in our history. We have a President of the United 
States who was elected not with the popular vote of the country but for 
the third time in history by the electoral college. We have a President 
who was elected effectively by one vote, some would argue by the one 
vote in the electoral college, but there are many others in the country 
who would argue it was the one vote in the Supreme Court of the United 
States. There are many in the country, whether legitimately or not, who 
have a deep sense of alienation and outrage over what happened in the 
application of law in the course of the last months in our Nation.
  Because this election was so divisive, because the President himself 
has come to office saying that he acknowledges the deep need for him to 
be a unifier and not a divider, I believe, therefore, this nomination 
is particularly troubling.
  Senator Ashcroft's record reveals a series of actions--not beliefs; I 
want to distinguish this. I heard colleagues defending Senator Ashcroft 
again and again saying he should not be held accountable for his deep-
rooted beliefs that reflect those who elected him. I am not holding him 
accountable, per se, for those beliefs. I believe, however, there are a 
series of actions that ignore the kind of need we face at this point in 
time to have an Attorney General come to office not needing to prove 
that the years in the past were somehow an aberration or a mistaken 
impression but, rather, who brings the full force of their history of 
commitment to civil rights, a commitment to a series of issues that are 
the law of the land.
  In effect, we are being asked to accept the nomination of an 
individual who, by definition, will have to wake up every single 
morning and curb his natural political instincts in order to do this 
job. I do not think that is an unfair statement because on all of those 
key issues where the Attorney General is so critical, whether it is 
guns or the law of the land with respect to Roe v. Wade, women's 
choice, or the law of the land with respect to civil rights in many 
areas, Senator Ashcroft again and again in his political life has been 
on the other side of those particular issues.
  There is a very simple question to ask yourself: Is that really what 
you want in an Attorney General of the United States?
  In my judgment, reviewing the record of the hearings and reviewing 
the record of Senator Ashcroft's stewardship as Attorney General, there 
are occasions where the Senator took actions that do not call to 
question today his ideology but call to question his judgment in 
pursuit of that ideology.
  Yes, Senator Ashcroft testified that he would enforce the laws with 
which he disagrees. But take, for instance, the voluntary school 
desegregation case in St. Louis, or the nomination of Judge Ronnie 
White, or the nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to 
Luxembourg, or the nomination of David Satcher for Surgeon General. 
Each of these, in my estimation, reveals a response by Senator Ashcroft 
that exhibited an exercise of judgment that I believe calls into 
question his ability to provide for the kind of moral and legal force 
necessary in the job of Attorney General.
  I am not convinced that you can simply dismiss each and every one of 
the instincts that led to the exercise of that judgment in each of 
those cases. Let me be very specific about each and every one of those.
  When he was Missouri attorney general, as we know--others have talked 
about it--Senator Ashcroft opposed the court-appointed voluntary 
desegregation plan for St. Louis. We know school desegregation is a 
controversial public policy, and there are many people who 
appropriately at various times in the country, in one place or the 
other, found fault with certain approaches to various voluntary 
desegregation plans. That is not the measure of my concern.
  What is deeply troubling to me is that despite the problems with the 
existing law and despite the problems that were found with the proposed 
voluntary remedy, Senator Ashcroft, in a position of leadership on this 
issue, duty bound to bring people together and to try to lead the 
community through this difficult time, failed to come up with an 
alternative that would have ameliorated the divisions of the community 
and, most importantly, would have addressed the segregated conditions. 
When children are trapped in schools that do not work, when cities are 
divided by racial lines, there is a choice that can be made: You can be 
a voice for reconciliation or you can be a voice for division.
  When Senator Ashcroft chose to politicize the issue beyond all 
proportion, which is what many people in the community have testified, 
he chose the latter, and that is a matter of judgment, not belief.
  Perhaps the most disturbing element in his record was the treatment 
of Judge Ronnie White. Many people have brought those facts to the 
floor, and I

[[Page 1156]]

obviously am not going to go through all of them again. I remember that 
debate well. I remember the language which characterized this good 
person. He was called procriminal. It was said that he had a tremendous 
bent towards criminal activity--a judge had a tremendous bent toward 
criminal activity. It was claimed that he was the court's most liberal 
judge on the death penalty and did not care ``how clear the evidence of 
guilt.''
  That is not true. Those words are simply not true. Of course he cared 
about guilt, and if you read his decision, his decision said nothing 
about whether or not he was not guilty or whether or not he should not, 
if guilty, be subjected to the death penalty. He did not think this man 
had a fair trial.
  I do not believe an Attorney General of the United States should 
interpret some judge's opposition to the lack of a fair trial to become 
on the floor of the Senate a rationale for a party-line vote, fully 
divided by virtue of his leadership on his protestations and 
characterizations of this judge.
  As is now well known, Judge White had a strong record of supporting 
capital punishment and often voted with Mr. Ashcroft's own appointees 
on the Missouri Supreme Court. Indeed, he had a tougher record on the 
death penalty than some of Senator Ashcroft's own nominees. Judge White 
voted for the death penalty in 41 of 59 cases that came before him, and 
he voted with the majority 53 times, including cases in which he 
favored reversal.
  So that is not an issue of ideology. That is not a matter of belief 
on which I choose to cast my vote. It is because I believe that Judge 
White was inappropriately characterized on the floor of the Senate. I 
believe that was a reflection of a judgment about another human being, 
about our politics, about life in our country. I do not believe, as 
some have claimed, at all--and I hope we would never insinuate--that 
Senator Ashcroft is racist. I do not think there is any evidence of 
that. I do not believe that he is. I think that is inappropriate to 
this debate. But I do think that it was an unfair distortion of Judge 
White's record branding him as procriminal. And the handling of that 
nomination in itself raises serious questions about judgment, about 
fairmindedness, and about fair play.
  Judge White, quite eloquently, made that very point during his 
testimony before the Judiciary Committee when he said: I believe that 
the question for the Senate is whether these misrepresentations are 
consistent with fair play and justice that you would require of the 
U.S. Attorney General. That is not a matter of ideology; that is a 
matter of judgment.
  I am also troubled that when David Satcher's nomination for Surgeon 
General came before the Senate with great bipartisan support, again, 
Senator Ashcroft filibustered and described him as a ``promoter of 
partial-birth abortion.''
  David Satcher had led the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta with 
distinction. He had been a leader at a medical college in Tennessee. He 
had the full backing of Senator Frist and Senator Thompson, both of 
whom are people of enormous integrity. They told us that David Satcher 
would not promote abortion. They told us that you could not question 
his character or his integrity. But John Ashcroft said that this 
individual would ``promote a heinous act, partial-birth abortion.'' 
Why? Simply because David Satcher believed that a ban on the procedure 
--which he was in favor of--ought to include an exception for the life 
and health of the mother.
  The kind of distortion we saw for David Satcher raises a question, 
not about ideology but about judgment and fairness and fair play.
  I am also troubled by Senator Ashcroft's judgment about the so-called 
alleged ``totality of the record'' with respect to a good man named 
James Hormel. I regret to say it, but I can only interpret the 
``totality of the record'' as a code word for opposition to James 
Hormel because he was gay.
  Why do I draw that conclusion? Because in the course of debate, and 
in the course of comments publicly, Senator Ashcroft, at the Foreign 
Relations Committee, never doubted that Mr. Hormel was a competent 
businessperson, never doubted or questioned his record of philanthropy 
or commitment to his community, never doubted or questioned his 
effectiveness as a dean, or the job he had done prior to entering the 
business at the University of Chicago. Senator Ashcroft was only one of 
two people on the Foreign Relations Committee to vote against him.
  During the confirmation hearings a couple weeks ago, he again 
reiterated it was the ``totality of the record'' but, once again, 
without any explanation.
  As we know, Mr. Hormel was finally appointed by a recess appointment. 
But in my judgment, Mr. Hormel was opposed for a status offense. 
Senator Ashcroft did raise questions about the propensity or likelihood 
Mr. Hormel might have about ``promoting a certain kind of lifestyle.'' 
I think every single one of us understands that is a code word in and 
of itself for his sexuality.
  I would add that the people of Luxembourg, far from raising this 
question themselves, did not share that concern. And so it was that 
Senator Ashcroft sought to deny Luxembourg an Ambassador that they were 
asking to have appointed.
  I do not believe the American people should have an Attorney General 
who leaves even doubts--even doubts--about whether or not being gay is 
a status offense.
  I am also troubled by the lack of sensitivity that was displayed, 
even in the aftermath of the interview that took place with Southern 
Partisan magazine in 1998. Another colleague has gone into that at 
great depth on the floor, and I will not spend a lot of time on it.
  It is one thing to have done the interview and, I suppose, to have 
suggested later that you did not know what the magazine did or who they 
spoke to or what audience they talked about. It is another thing when 
you are a nominee for Attorney General not to acknowledge that there 
are, indeed, questions that would arise in an interview of this nature 
with that kind of magazine.
  This is a magazine that praises John Wilkes Booth for assassinating 
Abraham Lincoln. It has editorials against interracial dating. When you 
read the interview itself, and you recognize the folks the Senator was 
trying to talk to, and what he was appealing to, it seems to me that 
there are serious questions, again, about judgment, about the judgment 
of what the message is to a large part of America who sees that 
magazine and those who adhere to its philosophy as those who have never 
gotten over the fact that slavery was ended in the South.
  I would have liked--I think many of us would have liked--to at least 
have heard a disavowal of those views or an expression, recognition 
that some of the views are, in fact, inappropriate and appeal to some 
people's worst instincts rather than best instincts.
  I think those are the kinds of expressions that ought to come from 
somebody who is going to try to represent the healing of the divisions 
that have occurred over the course of the last years. I might add, they 
are not just the healings from the difficulties of the election. They 
are the healings from the problems of racial profiling. They are the 
healings from the problems of discrimination in housing. They are the 
healings from the problems of so many people of color who wind up in 
prison instead of in college. They are the divisions that occur because 
so many in this country still believe that the law is stacked against 
them rather than working for them.
  The choices that an Attorney General will make are obviously critical 
to our ability to move forward and not backward with respect to those 
kinds of divisions. It is these particular acts of personal judgment 
that I believe raise the most serious questions about the 
appropriateness of Senator Ashcroft assuming this remarkably sensitive 
position.
  As a former prosecutor--I see Senator Reid is on the floor; and he 
shares that prior occupation--I think for many of us there is an acute 
sensitivity to the judgments that an Attorney General makes on a daily 
basis: what cases will be taken on; what particular task forces might 
be created in

[[Page 1157]]

order to try to address people's sense of grievance in the country; 
certainly, obviously, the power of the Solicitor General; the power of 
choosing who will sit on what courts; the power of deciding what you 
will appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States; and, most 
importantly, what you will investigate and how. All of these are issues 
of judgment, too.
  I believe the issues I have raised put before the Senate serious 
questions about the exercise in that judgment. I believe that in the 
end, notwithstanding what I have said, there is always a feeling by 
each of us with respect to a colleague that these votes are difficult. 
I don't pretend that it is not in this regard. That is true for all of 
us on our side. We have to make a choice. It is our responsibility and 
it is our oath to the Constitution to make the best judgments we can 
about the choices that are put in front of us.
  I believe the important thing at this moment in time in this 
particular position, above all, is to have a nominee who is free from 
this kind of controversy, who comes to this job not with the questions 
that have been raised in the Senate and this revisitation of the kind 
of divisiveness that so many of us are tired of. That is not something 
we asked for. That is something we were given by virtue of the 
President's choice to send us this nominee.
  With this nominee comes these questions about his ability to assume 
this job that requires such a special sensitivity, such a special sense 
of the need to bring the country together and to be able to apply the 
law equally and fairly to all.
  It may well be that every concern I have expressed is wiped away when 
John Ashcroft takes this job on, as we know he will. There is no 
question about whether he is going to be confirmed. But there is a 
question about whether or not we will ever, in the next few years, 
again have to revisit some of the questions that have been raised in 
the course of these hearings and in the course of this debate.
  My prayer is that we won't, and nothing, obviously, would please me 
more than to say to John Ashcroft: I am glad I sounded my warning 
bells, but I am equally glad that you proved us wrong and were the kind 
of Attorney General that the country needed at this moment.
  It may well be that all of our colleagues are absolutely correct in 
predicting that that is what we will have. If it is, so much the better 
for the Nation and so much the better for John Ashcroft. It is 
important for us to place as part of the record, as he assumes this 
job, the concerns that we have on behalf of so many people in this 
country who need to see the law applied more fairly and need to have a 
better sense of due process and of equal justice under the law. I hope, 
in the end, this administration and this Attorney General will produce 
that.
  Mr. HATCH. Finally, Mr. President, I wish to speak about John 
Ashcroft's ability, if and when he becomes Attorney General, to enforce 
laws that he spoke against or even voted against as a legislator.
  As you know, Mr. President, opponents of Senator Ashcroft are 
accusing him of being unable to set aside his opinions on certain laws 
sufficiently in order to enforce those laws.
  And I have to give those opponents credit for their creativity. They 
have developed a brand new test for cabinet appointees. Eight years 
ago, when the Senate unanimously confirmed an Attorney General whose 
personal views opposed the death penalty and the imposition of 
mandatory minimum sentences for convicted criminals, none of the anti-
Ashcroft crusaders accused Janet Reno of being unable to set aside her 
personal views.
  But while I admire the creativity of this new approach, I am deeply 
troubled by the substance beneath it. What's being proposed is to 
disqualify from high office anyone who has previously taken a side on a 
legislative proposal.
  It is simply not true that a legislator is so tainted by efforts to 
change laws that thereafter he or she cannot perform the duties of 
attorney general. Outside this Chamber, and outside of the Washington 
Beltway, Americans understand that people can take on different roles 
and responsibilities when they are given different positions. Americans 
know that lawyers can become judges, welders can become foremen, 
engineers can become managers, and school teachers can become school 
board leaders. And Americans know that a Senator, whose job is to 
propose and vote on new laws, can become an Attorney General, whose job 
is to enforce those laws that are duly passed.
  There aren't many people who know as much about the different roles 
in government as John Ashcroft. He has been in the executive branch--as 
an Attorney General for 8 years. He has been chief executive as 
Governor for 8 years. And he has been in the legislative branch as a 
United States Senator for 6 years. Each of these positions have 
required an understanding of the differing roles assumed by the three 
branches of government.
  It is in this context that John Ashcroft told the Senate what he will 
do as Attorney General. He said he will enforce the laws as written, 
and uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This 
is a concise yet profound statement about the proper role of the 
Attorney General. And it is more than just a statement, because it is 
backed up by the unquestioned integrity of John Ashcroft, a man who 
will do what he says. He will enforce the law as it is written, even in 
those instances where he would have written it differently.
  Still, some members of this body are unconvinced. They apparently 
think that John Ashcroft will not do what he said. Of course they would 
not call him a liar--at least not explicitly, anyway. They are saying 
that, try as he might, he simply cannot enforce the law because he 
wants so badly for the law to say something other than what it actually 
says.
  Some who have adopted this view are accusing John Ashcroft of 
changing his views. They accuse him of having a ``confirmation 
conversion.'' By this they mean that people who take off their 
legislator's cap, and put on an attorney general's hat, cannot adapt 
from the role of law writer to law enforcer without being insincere. 
This is a ludicrous proposition. John Ashcroft has not undergone a 
confirmation conversion; he has been the victim of an interest group 
illusion.
  Members of this body know something that the public may not: There is 
an unspoken rule that a nominee does not answer questions in public 
between their nomination and their confirmation hearing. This is done 
out of respect for the Senate--whose job it is, after all, to listen to 
the nominee rather than the media. But savvy special interest groups 
take advantage of the time in between to wage a war of words against 
nominees they dislike. Many of those words are exaggerated or 
unsubstantiated attacks. The result can be the fabrication of a false 
public record.
  Mr. President, I am asking my fellow Senators to resist the 
temptation to label it a ``conversion'' when a nominee simply corrects 
the misperceptions created by special interest groups. I am asking my 
colleagues to look at John Ashcroft's real record, and at own words--in 
his confirmation hearings, and in his answers to the voluminous written 
questions--rather than relying on the press releases of issue 
advocates.
  If you only listen to interest groups, you might conclude that John 
Ashcroft would bend or ignore the law in order to put more guns in 
people's hands. But you would be wrong. As Missouri's Attorney General 
in 1977, John Ashcroft wrote Attorney General Opinion No. 50, in which 
he interpreted state law to prohibit prosecuting attorneys from 
carrying concealed weapons even while engaged in the discharge of 
official duties. This is hardly the kind of decision that someone bent 
on eliminating gun laws would want to reach.
  The special interest groups also want us to believe that John 
Ashcroft cannot enforce abortion laws because of his personal view that 
life begins at conception. But 20 years ago, as Missouri Attorney 
General, John Ashcroft had--and did not take--the opportunity to bend 
the law to favor his

[[Page 1158]]

view. His 1981 Attorney General Opinion No. 5 barred the Missouri 
Division of Health from releasing statistics revealing the number of 
abortions performed by particular hospitals--even though such 
statistics would help the pro-life movement make its case. Similarly, 
in Attorney General Opinion No. 127, dated September 23, 1980, Attorney 
General Ashcroft determined that a death certificate was not required 
for all abortions, despite his personal view that abortion terminates 
human life. Are these the kind of decisions that you would expect from 
an unrestrainable zealot?
  But the special interest groups do not stop there. They have also 
attacked John Ashcroft for his religious views, inferring that he would 
use his position to blur the lines between church and state. The fact 
is, however, that John Ashcroft has turned down several opportunities 
to do just that. In a 1977 Attorney General Opinion, No. 102, Ashcroft 
forbade public school districts from using federal education funds to 
benefit nonpublic including parochial school children. He did so even 
though the federal grant in question specifically allowed private and 
parochial school children to benefit. In similar decisions, Attorney 
General Ashcroft prevented the State of Missouri from providing 
transportation for nonpublic school students [Attorney General Opinion 
No. 148], and determined that a board of education lacked legal 
authority to allow the distribution of religious material on school 
property [Attorney General Opinion No. 8, February 8, 1979]. Don't 
expect to see these decisions listed in the press releases concerning 
John Ashcroft's ``extremist views.''
  Another area of falsification concerns John Ashcroft's record on the 
enforcement of environmental laws. To hear some interest groups talk, 
you would think John Ashcroft wants to allow polluters to ignore the 
regulations that protect the planet. Again, his record shows the 
opposite. In Attorney General Opinion No. 123-84, Ashcroft declared 
that underground injection wells constitute pollution of the waters and 
are therefore subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of 
Natural Resources. He also opined that it would be unlawful to build or 
operate such a well without a permit from the Clean Water Commission. 
And in another opinion, Ashcroft decided that operators of surface 
mines must obtain a permit for each year that the mine was unreclaimed. 
In reaching this opinion, Ashcroft concluded that a continuous permit 
requirement facilitated Missouri's intention ``to protect and promote 
the health, safety and general welfare of the people of this state, and 
to protect the natural resources of the state from environmental 
harm.'' This settlement was echoed in an opinion concerning recycling 
that John Ashcroft wrote in 1977. In Attorney General Opinion No. 189, 
Ashcroft decided that Missouri's cities and counties could require that 
all solid waste be disposed of at approved solid waste recovery 
facilities, rather than landfills. That opinion was based on the 
arguments that ``recycling of solid wastes results in fewer health 
hazards and pollution problems than does disposal of the same types of 
wastes in landfills'' and that ``public welfare is better served by 
burning solid wastes for generation of electricity, thus conserving 
scarce natural resources.'' I suggest, Mr. President, that these are 
not the words of a man who is intent on ignoring the law and destroying 
the environment.
  My final example, Mr. President, is on the topic of minority set 
asides. As you know, among the tactics of the anti-Ashcroft forces has 
been to bring baseless racial allegations. And, again, this is being 
done in indirect and subtle ways, implying that there is something 
hidden and unrestrainable about John Ashcroft that should concern 
minorities. Thus my colleagues will be pleased to learn that, as 
Missouri's Attorney General, John Ashcroft issued an opinion which 
cleared the way for the Missouri Clean Water Commission to award a 15 
percent state grant to the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District to 
establish a minority business enterprise program.
  These examples--all of which pre-date the public smear campaign 
against John Ashcroft--demonstrate that Mr. Ashcroft has a record of 
enforcing the law. John Ashcroft has not undergone a confirmation 
conversion. Rather, he is a victim of interest group illusion. The 
artists behind the lobbying groups aligned against him have made his 
true record disappear in a cloud of smoke. And they are attempting to 
convince the public that his distinguished record of advocacy as a 
legislator is a straitjacket from which he cannot escape. But let me 
tell you what I see in the crystal ball. John Ashcroft is going to be 
an excellent attorney general. He is going to enforce the laws of this 
land fairly and forcefully. He will do so even when he might have 
written the law differently as a legislator.
  Mr. President, the issues that have been raised in objection to 
Senator Ashcroft's nomination are largely policy issues. There is no 
objection on his qualifications, his credentials, or his integrity. The 
attempt to paint him as extremist on policy grounds is countered 
effectively by his five elections to statewide office in Missouri, and 
his elections to head the National Association of Governors and the 
National Association of Attorneys General.
  Mr. President, John Ashcroft is qualified, not extreme on policy, but 
his policy positions are largely irrelevant because he has demonstrated 
that he understands his role as law enforcer, as distinguished from 
that of a policy advocate.
  I hope we will give him the benefit of the doubt if any doubt exists. 
I believe he will enforce the laws even-handedly and be a fine Attorney 
General.
  Mr. President, I would also like to respond to the issue of whether 
there have been religious attacks on Senator Ashcroft.
  Article VI of our Constitution, while requiring that Officers of the 
government swear to support the Constitution, assures us that ``no 
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office 
or public Trust under the United States.'' I fear that with regard to 
the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United 
States, we are coming very close to violating the spirit, if not the 
letter of that assurance.
  Mr. President, John Ashcroft has been attacked as a dangerous zealot 
by many of his opponents, who suggest that his faith will require him 
to violate the law, or as a liar who cannot be trusted when he says he 
will uphold the law, even when he disagrees with it, as he has in 
similar circumstances in the past.
  I think the corrosive attacks on a qualified nominee because of his 
religious beliefs not only weakens our constitutional government, but 
also undermines the ability of citizens in our democracy to engage in a 
meaningful dialog with each other. When such attacks are made on the 
ground that a man's faithful conviction will prevent him from 
discharging the duties of his office, whole segments of our democracy 
are disenfranchised, and the American heritage of religious tolerance 
is betrayed.
  Let me point to just a few instances of these amazing attacks on 
Senator Ashcroft, made on largely religious grounds, since he was 
nominated.
  Let me begin with the testimony of Professor James M. Dunn, who 
testified at our Senate hearings as an expert on religion issues. I 
begin here because Professor Dunn is the most explicit in his religious 
attack on Senator Ashcroft.
  Professor Dunn says explicitly what others have coyly and carefully 
implied. He says, and I quote what is essentially the thesis statement 
of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: ``the long history of 
Senator Ashcroft's identification with and approval of the political 
agenda of religious, right-wing extremism in this country convinces me 
that he is utterly unqualified and must be assumed to be unreliable for 
such a trust.''
  Let me quote that point again, ``the long history of Senator 
Ashcroft's identification with and approval of . . . religious, right-
wing extremism in this country convinces [Professor Dunn] that he is 
utterly unqualified and must

[[Page 1159]]

be assumed unreliable for such a trust.''
  That is about as baldly as the matter can be put, John Ashcroft is 
``utterly unqualified'' and ``unreliable'' because of his ``religious, 
right-wing extremism.''
  As if the name-calling were not enough, to make this an even more 
stunning assertion, the case Professor Dunn offers to prove this 
perceived ``extremism'' is that John Ashcroft was the ``principal 
architect'' of the so-called ``charitable choice'' legislation which 
was passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996.
  To suggest that duly passed legislation, adopted by two branches of 
government controlled by different political parties is outside the 
mainstream is simply ludicrous, and suggests that the one outside the 
mainstream is not Senator Ashcroft, but rather his critics. This is a 
point that could be made on a number of policy fronts.
  Well, I am disappointed when policy disagreements deteriorate into 
name-calling, but considering the source I am particularly 
disappointed. I would hope that the United States Senate would never 
countenance such attacks in the consideration of this, or any other, 
nominee. I hope no weight will be given to such intemperate vitriol, 
nor more guarded attacks made in the same spirit. And I hope that none 
of my colleagues would join in such attacks, whether explicitly stated 
or couched in more careful language.
  But I am glad that at least Professor Dunn's clear statement can put 
to rest the question of whether Senator Ashcroft is being attacked in 
part on his religious beliefs. Dunn is not alone, either. For example, 
Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in 
attacking Senator Ashcroft's nomination also cites charitable choice--
again, a law adopted by two branches of government controlled by two 
different parties--as an instance of Ashcroft's ``extreme views.'' And 
to underscore the broader point, Lynn points to the apparently decisive 
fact that ``Religious Right leaders find Ashcroft's fundamentalist 
Christian world view and his far-right political outlook appealing.'' 
Let us be clear here: the charge is guilt by association with religious 
people.
  As a number of my colleagues have suggested that the nominee might 
want to apologize for some of his associations or take the opportunity 
to dissociate himself from them, I would invite my colleagues to show a 
similar indignation for these attacks on people of faith, and 
dissociate themselves from these intolerant statements, unless they too 
would like their silence to be considered approval of such intolerance. 
Perhaps there needs to be greater sensitivity shown here.
  In addition to such explicit attacks, others attack Senator Ashcroft 
because his religious beliefs can be viewed as diverging from the legal 
results favored by far left liberal interest groups.
  For example, in the area of abortion, Ms. Gloria Feldt, the president 
of Planned Parenthood Federation of America criticized Senator Ashcroft 
for ``his belief that personhood begins at fertilization,'' saying that 
his view is ``one of the most extreme positions among those who oppose 
a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, John Ashcroft 
actually believes that personhood begins . . . at the moment that sperm 
meets egg, the moment of fertilization.'' Well, call it extreme if you 
will--that word is a hobby horse of the far left liberal groups who 
oppose this nominee--but I understand that is the position of a number 
of churches, including the Catholic church. What is striking and 
chilling about this attack is the implication that anyone who holds 
this belief, including believing members of many churches, including 
the millions of believing Catholics, are unfit for the office of 
Attorney General because of their ``extreme positions.'' Surely, the 
Senate cannot take the position that faithful Americans who adhere to 
the pro-life doctrines of their churches, or even those who are pro-
life on secular grounds, are unfit for office because of this view.
  Besides undermining our basic assumptions supporting the rule of law, 
this critique leads to a second, and more chilling result for religious 
tolerance, namely that of Senator's judging a nominee on the basis of 
their views of the nominee's religious faith and that faith's 
priorities. John Ashcroft responds to those who criticize him for his 
beliefs about abortion and the beginning of life, for example, by 
stating that his religion requires him to follow the law as written 
when he is filling an enforcement role, and his oath to do that will be 
binding on him. Those who challenge his veracity on this point are 
picking and choosing which of Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs they 
feel are genuine or which religious principle has priority for him. I 
think this moves dangerously close to the line of imposing a religious 
test on a nominee.
  Perhaps we can ask a nominee the general question whether there is 
anything that would keep them from fulfilling their duties, but I do 
not think it appropriate to assume that someone is unfit for a job 
because we have preconceptions about what their sect believes and then 
criticize them if their answers do not fit our preconceptions of what 
they should believe. We need to tread very carefully here. And we would 
do well in such matters to give the benefit of the doubt to the 
nominee. We have certainly given the benefit of the doubt to the last 
President when we had qualms about the quality or credentials of some 
of his nominees, or their policy positions. But we owe a special duty 
to resolve doubts in favor of a nominee when questions stem from our 
assumptions about a nominee's religious beliefs, especially in the face 
of the nominee's contradiction of our assumptions.
  Mr. President, I think we would all do well to remember what we know 
about John Ashcroft, and not be influenced by a caricature painted by 
those extreme groups whose distortions of this honorable man are driven 
largely by their own narrow political interests. We know John Ashcroft 
is the sort of person whose word is his bond. And if his religion is 
relevant, it speaks for him as a person who will discharge the office 
of Attorney General with honor and dignity, with impartiality, 
according to the law.
  I think if we examine our hearts, we will find nothing that 
disqualifies John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. And we cannot, in 
good conscience, say that all those Americans who believe as he does 
are outside the mainstream of American opinion. No, they are solidly 
within the history of American pluralism and freedom, including 
religious freedom. We know John Ashcroft will faithfully discharge his 
duties and honor his oath of office no matter what the liberal pressure 
groups assert. I hope we will similarly honor our oaths, rejecting what 
has become in essence a religious test for this nominee, and vote to 
confirm this honorable man to the post of Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from Illinois wishes to speak 
now. He has indicated he will take about 10 minutes. Following that, I 
ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak and, following that, 
Senator Kennedy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I rise in support of John Ashcroft in 
his nomination as our Nation's Attorney General.
  This nomination debate and the consideration of John Ashcroft's 
nomination is much different for me than my consideration of all the 
other nominees to President Bush's Cabinet. It is different for the 
reason that in the case of most other nominees, I do not know those 
individuals personally. Of course, I did know Senator Abraham who 
served well with us and has now been confirmed as our Nation's Energy 
Secretary. But with the exception of Senators Abraham and Ashcroft, 
most of the nominees come to me just from what I have heard, what I 
have seen in the newspapers, what others have written about those 
people. I do not have the personal experience that I have had in the 
case of John Ashcroft.
  I knew John Ashcroft before I joined the Senate over 2 years ago. I 
got to

[[Page 1160]]

know him a little bit during the time I was running for Senator from 
Illinois. Then, of course, once I was sworn into office, I had the 
privilege of working with John Ashcroft on a regular basis. I worked 
with him for 2 years side by side, sometimes day in and day out.
  My State of Illinois is right next door to the State of Missouri, so 
perhaps I have had the privilege of getting to know John Ashcroft and 
working with him more closely than many of the other Members of this 
body.
  We, of course, have many issues that Illinois and Missouri share in 
common. We have a similar agricultural economy where corn and beans are 
the prevailing crop. We also have the Mississippi River that divides 
our two States. We are frequently working together on issues of concern 
to the Mississippi River. We also share the Greater St. Louis 
metropolitan region. Most of that region is in John's State of 
Missouri, but a large portion of it, maybe 20 percent of it, actually 
is across in the eastern part of the Mississippi River and in my State 
of Illinois. We were constantly discussing issues of job creation and 
economic opportunities in the Greater St. Louis region.
  In addition, I had the opportunity to work closely with John insofar 
as he was a supporter of a bill that I sponsored last year to improve 
the standards on child safety seats in this country. The bill went 
through the Senate Commerce Committee. In fact, I believe John was 
chairman of the subcommittee in which that issue was first taken up.
  I also worked very closely with Senator Ashcroft on the issue of 
sanction reform. Both John and I and many others, representing 
particularly midwestern States, were very concerned that some of the 
sanctions our Government put on other countries, banning the sale of 
products from our country to other countries around the world that may 
have bad records in one regard or another, were hurting people that 
they were not intended to hurt and were not affecting the governments. 
At the same time, they were shooting our own farmers in the foot.
  I supported John's efforts to lift the sanctions with respect to food 
and medicine that our country had placed on a number of nations around 
the world.
  There are many other issues. In fact, my staff gave me two pages of 
issues that I worked very closely on with John Ashcroft. I am not going 
to go through and rebut one by one all the little points that have been 
made. In fact, I think many people have already done a good job 
rebutting some of the disinformation that has been put out. I think 
Senator Ashcroft did an outstanding job defending his own record before 
the Senate Judiciary Committee.
  Of the people I have known over the course of my public life, I would 
have to tell my colleagues that John Ashcroft has few equals in terms 
of character and integrity. John Ashcroft is a man of utmost character 
and integrity--as much, if not more so, than anyone else I have ever 
met in public life.
  When I heard that President Bush had nominated John Ashcroft to be 
Attorney General, I knew that I had disagreed with John Ashcroft on 
many issues during the course of the last 2 years. I had voted 
differently than he on any number of issues, maybe some of which have 
been used as an argument against John Ashcroft. But I thought: Thank 
God that President Bush has had the wisdom to put someone who is 
absolutely unimpeachable, irreproachable, and an absolute straight 
arrow in that office of Attorney General.
  I believe character and integrity are, hands down, the most important 
qualifications for that job and, indeed, just about any job in public 
life. Many people have raised the question, Will John Ashcroft enforce 
the laws? Clearly, there are many laws on the books that he would not 
have voted for and did not vote for, or, if they came up again, would 
not vote for. There are many laws on the books that many of us would 
not have voted for.
  But when the question comes up about John Ashcroft enforcing the 
laws, the thought that has gone through my head is, I know John 
Ashcroft well enough to believe with wholehearted confidence that if 
John Ashcroft says he will enforce the laws, he will enforce the laws. 
He is so stellar, so 24-carat is his honor and integrity, that I 
believe him without question.
  One of the other things that really has not been discussed or brought 
up in adequate defense of John Ashcroft--as bright as all my colleagues 
are in this illustrious body, the Senate, so many of whom are brilliant 
and had brilliant academic careers--is that I have to say John Ashcroft 
is one of the brightest and most articulate public servants with whom I 
ever had the privilege of serving. I think you can see that if you look 
at his early career and his undergraduate degree from Yale. He attended 
the University of Chicago Law School, a renowned institution in my home 
State. And many people do not even know that this man, who has spent 
most of his life in public office in so many different elected posts in 
the State of Missouri, was in fact a coauthor, I believe, with his wife 
of a business law textbook. It is hard to imagine when he found the 
time to do that. But so brilliant, so talented, and hard-working is 
John that he has a remarkable degree of accomplishment in academics, in 
public service, and in music and other areas. He is a wonderful, 
outstanding man.
  Finally, without belaboring this subject on which I think the points 
and counterpoints have been made now thoroughly on both sides of the 
aisle, the final thought with which I would like to leave the Senate is 
that the attacks that have been made on John Ashcroft simply don't 
compute with the John Ashcroft from my neighboring State whom I knew 
and served with day in and day out for 2 years.
  I don't think even the people of Missouri would recognize the 
characterizations of this man whom they elected to be their attorney 
general, their Governor, and their Senator and who has had such a long 
and distinguished career. And even before he was an elected officer, he 
was the State auditor of the State of Missouri. He is one of the most 
qualified people ever to be nominated for the office of Attorney 
General.
  I urge my colleagues, some of them who may disagree with votes John 
Ashcroft may have taken in his many years in the Senate, to reconsider 
and think about how important is his character and integrity, and just 
the fact that we can all sleep well at night knowing we have an 
absolute straight arrow in the highest law enforcement position in this 
country.
  Thank you very much, Mr. President.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that beginning at 9 
a.m. on Thursday, the Senate resume the Ashcroft nomination in 
executive session and the time be allocated in the following fashion: 9 
a.m. to 9:15 under the control of the majority party; 9:15 to 9:30 
under the control of Senator Harkin; from 9:30 to 9:45 under the 
control of Senator Johnson; from 9:45 to 10 a.m. under the control of 
the majority party; from 10 a.m. until 10:15 under the control of 
Senator Sarbanes; from 10:15 to 10:30 under the control of the majority 
party; from 10:30 to 10:45 under the control of Senator Lieberman; from 
10:45 to 11 a.m. under the control of the majority party; from 11 
o'clock to 11:10 under the control of Senator Edwards; from 11:10 to 
11:15 under the control of Senator Gramm of Texas; from 11:15 to 11:45 
a.m. under the control of Senator Wellstone; Senator Leahy or his 
designee from 11:45 to 12:15; Senator Hatch or his designee in control 
from 12:15 to 12:45 in the afternoon; and Senator Daschle or his 
designee from 12:45 in the afternoon to 1:15; Senator Bond in control 
from 1:15 to 1:30; and Senator Lott in control from 1:30 to 1:45.
  I ask unanimous consent that at 1:45 the Senate proceed to a vote on 
the confirmation of the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney 
General of the United States.
  Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if I 
could ask the distinguished leader, this locks in the vote at 1:45. Is 
it his assumption that should everybody have used up their time prior 
to that, there may be a new request to move the vote time earlier?

[[Page 1161]]


  Mr. LOTT. I believe this would indicate that the vote will be not 
later than 1:45. If Senators yield back their time or don't use the 
entire time, and we could finish at an early hour--11:30 or 12:00--I 
would be very appreciative of that. I would be willing to yield some of 
my own time to accomplish that. If we see we are ready to proceed to a 
vote at noon tomorrow, certainly, I would like to be able to do that.
  I thank Senator Leahy, and especially Senator Reid, for working this 
agreement out, and to all Senators who have been willing to accomplish 
it so we can complete this debate and get a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. In light of this agreement, the next vote will occur on the 
confirmation of our former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, not later 
than 1:45 p.m. tomorrow, and earlier if the time has been yielded back 
and we are ready to proceed to a final vote.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. REID. After Senator Kennedy, I will make a statement, and Senator 
Graham from Florida will make a statement. I say to all the Senators, 
either with the majority or the Democratic side, if they feel they 
still want to talk, they can come and talk tonight.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe we have some Senators committed to speak after 
that, at least two more within the next hour, interspersed with other 
speakers.
  Mr. REID. The point I make, no one should complain they don't have 
the ability to talk.
  Mr. LOTT. It is not that late by Senate time. I believe we have one 
speaker who will speak at 7:50 or so, and if other Senators who haven't 
spoken would like to get in the queue, we would like them to do that, 
or Senators who were thinking they want to wait until tomorrow, I think 
it would be well received if they could go ahead and speak tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order of 
speakers be reversed and that Senator Kennedy precede the Senator from 
Nevada.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I thank the leaders. I will just take a 
few moments to respond to some points that were made earlier in the day 
by my friend and colleague, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.
  Earlier this morning I took the time to review the history of the 
challenges that were there for St. Louis in terms of desegregation of 
the schools and the actions that were taken or failed to be taken by 
the nominee, Mr. Ashcroft. I took a considerable amount of time to 
review the whole history and review the cases there. I drew the 
conclusion that there was a gross failure of, I think, judgment in 
terms of taking the necessary steps to protect the interests of the 
children. Those cases were later challenged during the course of the 
afternoon, and I would like to respond very briefly and then to 
conclude with the remainder of my remarks that I had this morning, 
which, because others were here on the floor, I did not have the time 
to do.
  My food friend from Utah talked earlier about the St. Louis 
desegregation case. Unfortunately, he continued the pattern on the 
other side of expressing outrage about the fact that desegregation can 
be expensive, without being outraged by the injustice being done to the 
African American children in St. Louis.
  The simple fact is that Senator Ashcroft spent his career as attorney 
general denying the facts of discrimination and segregation. He 
continued to deny them at his confirmation hearing, and many of our 
colleagues are attempting to deny them on the floor of the Senate.
  The facts are clear. The state of Missouri was found guilty by the 
courts of segregating the schools and keeping them segregated all the 
way through the 1970s. The court's findings in 1980 made very clear 
that the state was aggressively maintaining segregation. Even black 
families who had moved out to the suburbs saw their children bused back 
into the inner-city to black schools. As the court ruled in 1982:

       We held . . . that the state had substantially contributed 
     to the segregation of the public schools of the City of St. 
     Louis . . . the state defendants are primary constitutional 
     wrongdoers and, therefore, can be required to take those 
     actions which will further the desegregation of the city 
     schools, even if the actions required will occur outside the 
     boundaries of the city school district.

  Yet Senator Ashcroft continued to insist that the state was ``found 
guilty of no wrong.''
  Some of our colleagues claimed that Senator Ashcroft's position was 
vindicated by the Supreme Court in Missouri v. Jenkins. But the Jenkins 
case was from Kansas City. It had nothing to do with St. Louis.
  The Supreme Court rejected every one of Ashcroft's three appeals in 
the St. Louis case. He also complained that some of the money went to 
the suburban schools. It went for the students who transferred to the 
suburban schools; that is Public School Choice. He said that the test 
scores went down in St. Louis in the nineties.
  What is clear, is that the students who transferred had consistently 
twice to three times the graduation rate, and in some districts, 90 
percent of the graduates went on to college.
  Defenders of Senator Ashcroft also claimed that desegregation in 
Missouri was more expensive than anywhere except California. We all 
know what made it expensive--the unrelenting 16 year fight against 
doing anything to fix the problem by Senator Ashcroft when he was 
Attorney General and Governor of the State.
  If Senator Ashcroft was simply protecting the state's treasury he 
could easily have proposed a cheaper alternative to the court. If he 
was concerned that the courts was ordering desegregation, he could 
easily have supported a state law to correct the problem.
  In fact, the state is not paying for the plan anymore, and that's 
because Senator Ashcroft successors, Attorney General Jay Nixon and 
Governor Mel Carnahan, provided the leadership needed to settle the 
cases and start improving education for all the children in St. Louis.
  Earlier, I spoke at length about Senator Ashcroft's record on civil 
rights--especially, school desegregation and voting rights--and his 
record on women's rights and gun control. At this time, I intend to 
discuss Senator Ashcroft's treatment of judicial and executive branch 
nominees.
  I know others have referenced some of them, but I want to underscore 
my own reaction and response to the handling of these nominations by 
Senator Ashcroft.
  Senator Ashcroft's handling of judicial and executive branch 
nominations raises deep concerns. In four of the most divisive 
nomination battles in the Senate in the six years he served with us, 
Senator Ashcroft was consistently involved in harsh and vigorous 
opposition to the confirmation of distinguished and well-qualified 
African Americans, an Asian American, and a gay American.
  When President Clinton nominated Judge Ronnie White of the Missouri 
Supreme Court to be a federal district court judge, Senator Ashcroft 
flagrantly distorted the record of the nominee and attacked him in the 
strongest terms. He accused Judge White of being ``an activist with a 
slant toward criminals.'' He accused him of being a judge with ``a 
serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty.'' He 
accused him of seeking ``at every turn'' to provide opportunities for 
the guilty to ``escape punishment.'' He accused him of voting ``to 
reverse the death sentence in more cases than any other [Missouri] 
Supreme Court judge.''

[[Page 1162]]

  When questioned about Judge White's nomination, Senator Ashcroft did 
not retreat from his characterization of Judge White's record, although 
a review clearly demonstrates that Senator Ashcroft's charges were 
baseless. It's clear that Senator Ashcroft distorted the record in 
order to portray Judge White's confirmation as a referendum on the 
death penalty.
  Senator Ashcroft had decided to use the death penalty as an issue in 
his campaign for re-election to the Senate, and to make his point, he 
cruelly distorted the honorable record of a distinguished African 
American judge and denied him the position he deserved as a federal 
district court judge. As I said at the hearing, what Senator Ashcroft 
did to Judge White is the ugliest thing that has happened to a nominee 
in all my years in the Senate.
  Senator Ashcroft was also asked about the nominations of Bill Lann 
Lee to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Dr. David 
Satcher to serve as Surgeon General of the United States, and James 
Hormel to serve as U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg.
  Senator Ashcroft told the committee that he could not support Mr. Lee 
because he had ``serious concerns about his willingness to enforce the 
Adarand decision'' on affirmative action. In truth, however, Mr. Lee's 
position on affirmative action was well within the mainstream of the 
law, and he repeatedly told the committee that he would follow the 
Supreme Court's ruling in the Adarand case. As Senator Leahy said 
during the Ashcroft confirmation hearings,

       Mr. Lee testified on a number of occasions--in fact, 
     testified under oath, including, incidentally, directly in 
     answer to your questions, that he would enforce the law as 
     declared in Adarand. And he also said, in direct answer to 
     questions of this committee, he considered the Adarand 
     decision of the Supreme Court as the controlling legal 
     authority of the land, that he would seek to enforce it, he 
     would give it full effect . . .

  That wasn't sufficient for Senator Ashcroft and he continued to 
oppose, and oppose strongly, this extraordinarily well-qualified, 
committed, and dedicated public servant.
  Similarly, Senator Ashcroft said he did not support Dr. Satcher to be 
Surgeon General because he:

       . . . supported a number of activities that I thought were 
     inconsistent with the ethical obligations of a medical doctor 
     and a physician, particularly the surgeon general . . . for 
     example he supported an AIDS study on pregnant women in 
     Africa where some patients were given placebos, even though a 
     treatment existed to limit transmission of AIDS from the 
     mother to the child . . . I, secondly, believed his 
     willingness to send AIDS-infected babies home with their 
     mothers without telling their mothers about the infection of 
     the children was another ethical problem that was very 
     serious.

  In fact, at the time of the debate on the Satcher nomination in 1997, 
approximately 1,000 babies were born with HIV every day. Most of the 
births were in developing countries, where the U.S.-accepted regimen of 
AZT treatment is not practical because of safety and cost concerns. In 
1994, the World Health Organization had called a meeting of 
international experts to review the use of AZT to prevent the spread of 
HIV in pregnancy. That meeting resulted in the recommendation that 
studies be conducted in developing countries to test the effectiveness 
and safety of short-term AZT therapy that could be used in developing 
countries and that those studies be placebo-controlled to ensure safety 
in areas with various immune challenges. Approval was obtained by 
ethics committees in this country and the host countries and by the 
UNAIDS program.
  The studies were supported by many leaders in the medical field, and 
the facts undermine Senator Ashcroft's criticism of Dr. Satcher.
  Senator Ashcroft also mischaracterized Dr. Satcher's role in the 
survey of HIV child-bearing women. In 1995, seven years after the 
survey began during the Reagan Administration, Dr. Satcher, as acting 
CDC director, and Dr. Phil Lee, former Assistant Secretary for Health, 
halted the HIV survey. They did so because of a combination of better 
treatment options for children with HIV, the discovery of a therapeutic 
regimen to reduce mother-to-infant HIV transmission, and a greater 
ability to monitor HIV trends in women of childbearing age in other 
ways.
  Dr. Satcher's participation in the survey was justified, and it was 
not a valid reason for Senator Ashcroft to deny him confirmation as 
Surgeon General.
  It was a gross distortion of his record in this situation. To 
criticize him for taking actions which were inconsistent with ethical 
considerations in that case was a complete distortion of the record.
  The case of James Hormel is also especially troubling. When Mr. 
Hormel was nominated by President Clinton to serve as Ambassador to 
Luxembourg, Senator Ashcroft and Senator Helms were the only two 
members of the Foreign Relations Committee to oppose the nomination. 
Although Senator Ashcroft voted against Mr. Hormel, Senator Ashcroft 
did not attend the confirmation hearings, did not submit written 
questions, and refused Mr. Hormel's repeated requests to meet or speak 
by phone to discuss the nomination.
  Generally, as a matter of courtesy, if a nominee asks individual 
members to meet with them to explain their positions, respond to 
questions, as long as it have been in the Senate that has been a 
privilege that has been extended. But not by Mr. Ashcroft to Mr. 
Hormel, in spite of repeated requests.
  In 1998, when asked about his opposition to Mr. Hormel's nomination, 
Senator Ashcroft stated that homosexuality is a sin and that a person's 
sexual conduct:

       [I]s within what could be considered and what is eligible 
     for consideration.

  Senator Ashcroft also publicly stated in 1998 that:

       [Mr. Hormel's] conduct and the way in which he would 
     represent the United States is probably not up to the 
     standard that I would expect.

  Senator Leahy asked Senator Ashcroft at the Judiciary Committee 
hearings whether he opposed Hormel's nomination because of Hormel's 
sexual orientation. Senator Ashcroft responded ``I did not.'' Instead, 
Senator Ashcroft claimed that he had ``known Mr. Hormel for a long 
time''--Mr. Hormel had been a dean of students at the University of 
Chicago law school when Senator Ashcroft was a student there in the 
1960s. Senator Ashcroft repeatedly testified that he based his 
opposition to Mr. Hormel on the ``totality of the record.''
  Mr. Hormel was so troubled by Senator Ashcroft's testimony that he 
wrote to the committee and said the following:

       I want to state unequivocally and for the record that there 
     is no personal or professional relationship between me and 
     Mr. Ashcroft which could possibly support such a statement.

  The letter continued:

       I have had no contact with him [Ashcroft] of any type since 
     I left my position as Dean of Students . . . nearly thirty-
     four years ago, in 1967 . . . For Mr. Ashcroft to state that 
     he was able to assess my qualifications . . . based upon his 
     personal long-time relationship with me is misleading, 
     erroneous, and disingenuous . . . I find it personally 
     offensive that Mr. Ashcroft, under oath and in response to 
     your direct questions, would choose to misstate the nature of 
     our relationship, insinuate objective grounds for voting 
     against me, and deny that his personal viewpoint about my 
     sexual orientation played any role in his actions.

  We should all be deeply concerned about Senator Ashcroft's 
willingness to mislead the Judiciary Committee about his reasons for 
opposing the Hormel nomination. As the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted on 
January 22, 2001:

       [T]he most disturbing part of Mr. Ashcroft's testimony was 
     the way in which he misstated important parts of his record.

  Senator Ashcroft's efforts to derail the nominations of these four 
distinguished men was grounded in a distortion of the facts. In every 
case, He twisted events to suit his purposes and held the nominees to a 
standard by which he could not be confirmed.
  Sadly, the facts surrounding these nominations represent the tip of 
the iceberg. Year after year, Senator Ashcroft worked to prevent the 
confirmation of talented women and minorities--Marsha Berzon, Richard 
Paez, Margaret McKeown, and others. In some instances he was successful 
and--

[[Page 1163]]

fortunately--in others, he was not. But, what is most disturbing is 
Senator Ashcroft's unfair treatment of well-qualified men and women, 
and, what appears to be, a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of 
a federal jurist or the role of a member of the President's Cabinet.
  I want to mention Senator Ashcroft's decades-long opposition to gun 
control legislation.
  Senator Ashcroft is closely tied to the gun lobby and he has often 
accepted contributions from these organizations and supported their 
agendas. During the hearing, he told us that keeping guns out of the 
hands of felons is a ``top priority'' of his. Yet, in 1998, this did 
not seem to be a top priority for him. He supported an NRA-sponsored 
ballot initiative that would have allowed almost anyone to carry 
concealed guns in Missouri. The proposal was so filled with loopholes 
that it would have allowed convicted child molesters and stalkers to 
carry semi-automatic pistols into bars, sports stadiums, casinos and 
day care centers. The proposal was opposed by numerous law enforcement 
groups and many in the business community. Proponents of the measure 
say Senator Ashcroft volunteered his help to support the referendum, 
even recording a radio and endorsing the proposal. Senator Ashcroft 
stated in response to written questions that:

       Although [he did] not recall the specific details, [his] 
     recollection is that supporters of the referendum approached 
     [him] and asked [him] to record the radio spot.

  The fact remains that Senator Ashcroft did support the referendum and 
did record the radio spot. Few can doubt that as a seasoned politician, 
Senator Ashcroft made himself fully aware of the contents of the 
referendum before lending his name to it. And if he did not, there is 
even greater reason to question his judgment and suitability for such a 
high and important position in our Federal Government.
  Senator Ashcroft championed the NRA's concealed weapon proposition in 
1998. But in 1992, while governor of Missouri, he had voiced his 
concerns about such a measure. As governor, he stated he had ``grave 
concerns'' about concealed carry laws. He stated:

       Overall, I don't know that I would be one to want to 
     promote a whole lot of people carrying concealed weapons in 
     this society.

  He further stated:

       Obviously, if it's something to authorize everyone to carry 
     concealed weapons, I'd be concerned about it.

  When asked about his change of view in deciding to support the 1998 
initiative, Senator Ashcroft said he changed his position because of 
``Research plus real-world experiences.''
  However, Senator Ashcroft's research was so flawed that he responded 
to written questions that ``[t]o the extent there were loopholes in 
Missouri law'' that would permit convicted child molesters and stalkers 
to carry concealed weapons, he was ``unaware of those provisions at the 
time.'' Later, it was reported that the gun lobby spent $400,000 in 
support of Senator Ashcroft's Senate reelection campaign. He became:

     the unabashed celebrity spokesman . . . for the National 
     Rifle Association's recent attempts to arm citizens with 
     concealed weapons in Missouri.

  That is according to a column by Laura Scott in the Kansas City Star.
  The Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms gave 
Senator Ashcroft the ``Gun Rights Defender of the Month'' Award for 
leading the opposition to David Satcher's nomination to be Surgeon 
General. The group objected to Dr. Satcher because he advocated 
treating gun violence as a public health problem.
  Based on his close ties to the gun lobby and his strong support for 
their agenda, it is difficult to have confidence that Senator Ashcroft 
will fully and fairly enforce the nation's gun control laws and not 
seek to weaken them.
  Senator Ashcroft has shown time and time again that he supports the 
gun lobby and opposes needed gun safety measures. Given the important 
litigation in the Federal courts, it is imperative to have an Attorney 
General who will strongly enforce current gun control laws such as the 
Brady law, the assault weapons ban, and other statutes. It is also 
important to have an Attorney General with a responsible view of 
proposed legislation when the Department of Justice is asked to comment 
on it.
  In conclusion, the Attorney General of the United States leads the 
85,000 men and women who enforce the Nation's laws in every community 
in the country. The Attorney General is the Nation's chief law 
enforcement officer and a symbol of the Nation's commitment to justice. 
Americans from every walk of life deserve to have trust in him to be 
fair and just in his words and in his actions. He has vast powers to 
enforce the laws and set priorities for law enforcement in ways that 
are fair or unfair--just or unjust.
  When a President nominates a person to serve in his Cabinet, the 
presumption is rightly in favor of the nominee. But Senator Ashcroft 
has a long and detailed record of relentless opposition on fundamental 
issues of civil rights and other basic rights of vital importance to 
all the people of America, and the people of this country deserve 
better than that. Americans are entitled to an Attorney General who 
will vigorously fight to uphold the law and protect our constitutional 
rights. Based on a detailed review of his long record in public 
service, Senator Ashcroft is not that man. I urge the Senate to vote no 
on this nomination.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Kennedy continues to 
mischaracterize Senator Ashcroft's record with regard to school 
desegregation. First, let me say that I do not in the least condone 
segregation in St. Louis or Kansas City or anywhere else. It is a 
shameful legacy that must be dealt with appropriately.
  Second, while the costs of the desegregation program were exorbitant 
this is not the only criticism to be made of the plans. The primary 
argument repeatedly made by Senator Ashcroft is that the state was 
never found liable for an inter-district violation.
  Senator Kennedy refers to an 8th circuit decision that he argues 
found the State of Missouri guilty of an inter-district violation. But 
a circuit court cannot make such a factual finding. Rather this is a 
finding that must be made by the trial court.
  The fact that the State was never found liable for an inter-district 
violation is shown by the fact that throughout 1981 and 1982 the 
parties were preparing for a trial on the very question of inter-
district liability.
  So again, I emphasize that it is true and correct to say that the 
State was never found liable for an inter-district violation.
  Although the State was not found liable for an inter-district 
violation it was required by the district court to pay for a settlement 
reached by the suburbs and the City of St. Louis. This order by the 
district court was likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's 
decision in Milliken.
  Opposing these court orders for a plan that was constitutionally 
suspect, expensive, and ineffective, does not make Senator Ashcroft an 
opponent of desegregation.
  Indeed, the plan as implemented has been a dismal failure. Test 
scores actually declined from 1990 to 1995. Scores on the Stanford 
Achievement Test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at a time when the national 
mean was 50. And the graduation rate has remained around a dismal 30 
percent.
  He has repeatedly stated the opposite position.
  To question Senator Ashcroft's integrity over such a complicated and 
controversial issue is to seriously distort his record and disbelieve 
his sworn testimony.
  Senator Ashcroft acted with great probity as representative for the 
State of Missouri. He supports integration and deplores racism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Department of Justice is the 
representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a 
sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as 
its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, is that justice 
shall be done.

[[Page 1164]]

  That obligation of impartiality, oft repeated by the Supreme Court, 
courses as the lifeblood through all departments of any fair and 
representative government. From it springs the confidence in government 
which is the presupposition central to the Founding Fathers' basic 
premise; that government derives its proper power only from the consent 
of the governed.
  When George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency, when he took his 
oath of office, he promised the American people that he would not 
divide our house against itself. I took him at his word.
  When he nominated John Ashcroft as Attorney General I kept an open 
mind and determined that I would, as I have always tried to do in the 
past, judge the nominee upon the evidence presented regarding his 
fitness for office, and that I would give the chief executive what 
leeway I could in his choice of people to carry out his plans and 
policies. That license, however, is not unlimited, for it is also my 
obligation to pass upon the nominee; to weigh the evidence of his or 
her past and determine how it will affect our country's future.
  I have weighed the facts revealed before the Judiciary Committee to 
the best of my ability. The evidence has convinced me that Mr. Ashcroft 
has demonstrated real and substantial biases against women, people of 
color, gays and lesbians, and anyone else who does not meet his 
personal definition of what constitutes a true American. Not only has 
he shown that pervasive bias, he has repeatedly acted upon it as 
attorney general and Governor of Missouri and as a member of this body.
  It is with sadness I stand here tonight to say that the facts have 
forced me to two conclusions. First, John Ashcroft, while he has many 
fine qualities, he is not the person to be this country's chief law 
enforcement officer. Second, while President George W. Bush may wish to 
be a unifier, he is not willing to put unity above partisan appeal to 
the most extreme elements in the Republican Party.
  To President Bush I say this. Please remember that it was the first 
Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who quoted from the Bible these 
words, ``A house divided against itself cannot stand.'' You, President 
Bush, campaigned on a platform of unification of this Nation. I will 
support every effort of yours to do so, but unification does not mean 
that we abandon our commitment to fairness and impartiality and 
essential decency in government.
  To John Ashcroft, I say that I cannot confirm to an office whose 
obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as his obligation to 
govern at all; and whose interest, is that justice shall be done a man 
who has repeatedly and pervasively demonstrated that he is not 
impartial, and that he judges individuals not by the content of their 
souls but rather by the tint of their ideology. I cannot confirm a man 
who allows his bias against another's most personal lifestyle choices 
to effect his decision on whether that individual is fit to enter 
public service. I cannot confirm a man who prevents women from options 
to which they should be entitled. I cannot confirm as Attorney General 
anyone who will not confer upon that office the impartiality it demands 
and, most importantly, deserves.
  Mr. President, I cannot for the women of Nevada, for the people of 
Nevada, vote to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United 
States.
  So when my name is called by the clerk of the Senate, I will respond 
without hesitation ``No.''
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, many of my Democratic 
colleagues rose today and expressed their objections to the nomination 
of former Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. 
I do not wish to recapitulate their arguments, but I share many of 
their concerns regarding his nomination. I believe former Senator John 
Ashcroft has been a dedicated public servant who has acted in what he 
felt was the public's best interest. But his record has stirred 
controversy on a wide-range of issues. The position of attorney general 
is one of great importance to the people of the United States. An 
Attorney General must unite the citizens. Unfortunately, Senator 
Ashcroft's record has tended to be divisive rather than unifying.
  Most importantly, many Floridians are afraid that Senator Ashcroft 
will turn back the clock on civil rights after all the progress that 
has been made over the years. Based on his record and his testimony 
before the Judiciary Committee, I share their concern.
  An Attorney General, of all the Cabinet officers, must be perceived 
to be the most vigilant enforcer of the law, an attorney who will 
represent all the people's interest. I am afraid this nomination does 
not meet that test. Thus, I am voting against confirmation.
  Mr. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I truly believe that a President is 
entitled to his, or her, cabinet. I am aware that virtually all of 
President Clinton's cabinet was approved by voice vote, with one 
exception, which was a roll call vote, and that nominee was 
overwhelmingly approved.
  However, the background record of this nominee is not mainstream on 
the key issues. I know he is strong and tough on law and order issues. 
However, his views on certain issues--civil rights and desegregation, a 
woman's right to choose and guns--make him an enormously divisive and 
polarizing figure.
  This record can best be characterized as ultra-right wing. That is 
not where most of the people in this nation are.
  Senator Ashcroft's commitment to enforce the law in view of the 
extremeness of his record, as well as, on occasion, the harshness of 
his rhetoric, makes it difficult to believe that he can, in fact, 
fairly and aggressively enforce laws he deeply believes are wrong.
  When Senator John Ashcroft opposed Bill Lann Lee's nomination to head 
the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice, he argued that 
Lee was ``an advocate who is willing to pursue an objective and to 
carry it with the kind of intensity that belongs to advocacy, but not 
with the kind of balance that belongs to administration . . . his 
pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his 
capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that will be 
necessary for the person who runs [the Civil Rights] Division.''
  If the Senator's own standard is applied to this nomination, he would 
not be confirmed.
  Last week, this committee held four days of hearings into the 
nomination of Senator Ashcroft. During that time, we witnessed a man 
who had undergone a major transformation on many key issues of 
importance to the people of my State and the nation. The question that 
each Senator must now ask, is whether that transformation is plausible 
after more than 25 years of advocating the other side.
  On a woman's right to choose, for example, the new John Ashcroft 
would have us believe that he fully accepts Roe v. Wade as the law of 
the land, and he will do nothing to try to overturn it. He would fully 
fund task forces to protect women as they enter abortion clinics, and 
stated firmly that ``no woman should fear being threatened or coerced 
in seeking constitutionally protected health services.''
  Contrast that with the John Ashcroft of the past 25 years, who has 
long argued that there is no constitutional right to abortion at all, 
that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, and in 1998 wrote that ``If I had 
the opportunity to pass but a single law. I would . . . ban every 
abortion except those medically necessary to save the life of the 
mother.'' This John Ashcroft supported a constitutional amendment to 
ban virtually all abortions, even in the cases of rape and incest--an 
amendment that would also likely ban some of the most common forms of 
birth control, including the pill and the IUD.
  The John Ashcroft of 25 years once stated, ``Battles (for the unborn) 
are being waged in courtrooms and state legislatures all over the 
country. We need every arm, every shoulder, and every hand we can find. 
I urge you to enlist yourself in that fight.'' The new John Ashcroft 
claims to have laid down his arms entirely.
  On gun control, the new John Ashcroft says he supports background

[[Page 1165]]

checks at gun shows, says that he voted to deny the right to bear arms 
to domestic violence offenders, and says he would support re-
authorizing the assault weapons ban when it expires in 2004, although 
he has called it ``wrong-headed.''
  The old John Ashcroft, on the other hand, voted against mandatory 
background checks at gun shows, trigger locks on guns sold, and a ban 
on large capacity ammunition magazines. He supported a concealed 
weapons law that would allow the people of Missouri to carry a 
concealed firearm into a grocery store, a church, or on school grounds 
or on a school bus, superceding the Federal Gun Free Schools Act. He 
was, and still may be, an active member of the National Rifle 
Association.
  On civil rights, the old John Ashcroft strenuously fought a 
desegregation plan in Missouri. In fact, the judge in the case stated 
that Attorney General Ashcroft, ``as a matter of deliberate policy, 
decided to defy the authority of this court.''
  The old John Ashcroft spoke at Bob Jones University, that to this day 
remains highly questionable for its religious and racial bias; at the 
hearing he demurred when Senator Biden urged him to return the honorary 
degree and did not rule out returning to the college in the future.
  And the old John Ashcroft, in stating his reasons for voting against 
James Hormel as Ambassador for Luxemburg, stated that Hormel had 
``actively supported the gay lifestyle,'' and that a person's sexual 
conduct is ``within what could be considered and what is eligible for 
consideration'' for ambassadorial nominees.
  Yet the new John Ashcroft promises never to discriminate against gays 
or lesbians for employment and said the reason for voting against 
Ambassador Hormel was because he knew him personally. Mr. Hormel called 
to tell me that he not only does not know Mr. Ashcroft, but that the 
Senator had refused to meet with him prior to his confirmation.
  For over a quarter-century of public life, John Ashcroft has 
established a record of right-wing conservatism, and of views far to 
the right of the average American, and even of many in his own party. 
Senator Ashcroft has spent a career fighting against a woman's right to 
choose. He obstructed the nominations of several women and minority 
candidates to the federal bench.
  Senator Aschcroft said just two short years ago that `There are 
voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who 
champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to 
reject those deceptions. If ever there was a time to unfurl the banner 
of unabashed conservatism, it is now.''
  In 1997, Senator Ashcroft remarked that ``People's lives and fortunes 
[have] been relinquished to renegade judges--a robed, contemptuous 
intellectual elite.'' He continued that ``Judicial despotism . . . 
stands like a behemoth over this great land.''
  In a speech entitled ``Courting Disaster: Judicial Despotism in the 
Age of Russell Clark,'' Senator Ashcroft reveals deep and antagonistic 
feelings toward the courts of our country with this sentence: ``Can it 
be said that the `people govern'? Can it still be said that citizens 
control that which matters most? Or have people's lives and fortunes 
been relinquished to renegade judges--a robed contemptuous, 
intellectual elite that has turned the courts into `nurseries of vice 
and the bane of liberty'?''
  And in the case of Missouri Supreme Court Justice Ronnie White's 
nomination to the federal bench, Senator Ashcroft was responsible for a 
dark day in the Senate. When a home-state Senator objects to a nominee, 
it is very unlikely that the nomination will go forward. But instead of 
quietly objecting early on and allowing White to withdraw his 
nomination with dignity if he so wished, John Ashcroft waited until the 
nominee reached the floor of the Senate--after waiting for two full 
years--to derail the nomination and humiliate the nominee by stating, 
``We do not need judges with a tremendous bent toward criminal 
activity.''
  Whatever Senator Ashcroft's problem with Ronnie White, there was no 
need to destroy White's reputation on the floor of the Senate, with no 
warning and no chance for Judge White to either defend himself or 
withdraw. This one act has become a stumbling block to my support, 
which I have not been able to get around. It says to me that it was 
done for political purposes.
  Taken as a whole, Senator Ashcroft's positions and statements, in my 
view, do not unite, but rather divide. They send strong signals to the 
dispossessed, the racial minorities of our country, and particularly to 
all women who have fought long and hard for reproductive freedom that 
this Attorney General will not be supportive of laws for which they 
fought, no matter what he has said in the past weeks.
  How can our citizens feel that this man will stand up for them when 
their civil rights are violated? How can the left out, the rape victim 
who needs an abortion have faith that this man would enforce their 
rights?
  In the end, every Senator must live with his or her own vote, and for 
this Senator, that vote will be ``no.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as a Senator, I do not serve on the 
Judiciary Committee, but I have watched nearly every hour of their 
hearing on the confirmation of John Ashcroft to be our next Attorney 
General of the United States.
  I have watched while men and women of good will, while attempting to 
speak in soft and mellow tones, have been intimidated and bludgeoned by 
the far left to such a point that we now hear them come to the floor of 
the Senate and reach to find excuses to vote against a man of good 
faith and a man of good will.
  I am not an attorney, nor have I ever claimed to be, but as a human 
being who has served in public life for a good number of years and 
associated with a great many people, I believe I am a reasonable judge 
of character.
  This afternoon, I heard a speech from one of my colleagues about 
seeing into the heart of John Ashcroft. That particular Senator said 
that once she had viewed the heart of John Ashcroft, she could not 
support him.
  I suggest to that Senator that I have not seen into the heart of John 
Ashcroft, but I know it because I have lived near it and around it for 
the last 6 years. I know of its sincerity and its compassion. I know of 
its love of people and love of this institution. I know of its great 
patriotic pride for its country. I know of a heart that has served as a 
State attorney general, a Governor, a Senator, and who will soon serve 
as the U.S. Attorney General.
  No, I have not seen the heart. I know the heart, and I know it to be 
a heart of compassion, but I also know it to be a heart of truth, one 
who, when he looks into the eyes of his colleagues and says, ``I will 
enforce the laws of this Nation,'' he and he alone is telling the 
truth.
  Why could we assume he would tell the truth when others in past years 
have failed that test? Because he is a moral and ethical Christian.
  That is a very valuable and important definition to understand 
because if you meet that definition, you must enforce the law; it is 
within your character and your being that you do such. Lawmakers and 
law enforcers are different types of people, but within the character 
of the definition I have just given, they are people who, by their very 
being, must enforce the law. They cannot arbitrarily, they cannot 
philosophically, nor can they politically, adjust the law as we have 
seen it for 8 long years be adjusted to meet the politics of the day.
  Quite the opposite happens with a man of the character of John 
Ashcroft; for if he does not like the law, if he does not feel it 
comports to his belief of what the culture and the character of our 
country ought to be, does he not enforce it? No. He turns to the 
lawmaking body, us, and says: You ought to change the law. It does not 
fit the character or the essence of the American way of life. But while 
it is here, I will enforce it as your Attorney General. You see, I 
must; it is my responsibility. I have taken the oath of office, and in 
taking that oath, I must uphold the law.

[[Page 1166]]

  Yes, John Ashcroft is a Christian. He is a man of faith. My wife 
Suzanne and I know John and Janet Ashcroft well and personally. We have 
traveled around the country and around the world with them. He is a 
close, personal friend. In all of those times that we have traveled 
together, I have never heard him once speak ill of another human being. 
Not once have I ever heard him impugn the character of another human 
being.
  Oh, John Ashcroft is a passionate man. He believes strongly in 
certain ``isms.'' But most importantly, he believes in Jesus Christ. He 
is a Christian. That is a character valuable to the culture of our 
country.
  What I have seen or what I have felt over the last several weeks is 
the ultimate test coming down on John Ashcroft. While it has not been 
spoken, I sincerely believe it has been implied, that if you are a 
Christian, if you are a person of faith, you cannot serve in public 
life and in public office in this country because it, in some way, 
``taints'' the way you think, the way you act, the way you respond.
  I offer that challenge up to all of my colleagues because if that is 
what is being implied by the far left today, then shame on them, for it 
is outside the character of this country and it is outside the 
Constitution of this country.
  Let me read from article VI. The last full paragraph of that article 
says:

       The Senators, and Representatives before mentioned, and the 
     Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive 
     and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the 
     several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to 
     support this constitution; but no religious Test shall ever 
     be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust 
     under the United States.

  That is the Constitution of the United States. That is the hallowed 
voice of our Founding Fathers. Yet by implication and innuendo, the far 
left of this country has implied, time and time again over the last 
several weeks, that a Christian person, a person of faith, cannot be 
trusted to serve and render the just and appropriate interpretation of 
the laws of this country. That is not only wrong for our country; that 
is wrong under our Constitution. That test can never be allowed to be 
applied, whether on the right or on the left or down the center. It is 
a test of character that we have prohibited in this country for all 
time. And because we have prohibited it, our country is a sanctuary for 
all the world to seek.
  Mr. President, I am confident, because I know John Ashcroft--I know 
his heart, that he is a man of unquestionable character who will do as 
he has said he will do before the Judiciary Committee of the Senate--
that he will enforce the laws of this land, so help him God.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I rise in support of the confirmation of 
John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States.
  I spent 15 years of my professional career as a prosecutor, as a U.S. 
Attorney, in the Department of Justice. It is an institution for which 
I have the highest respect that I can express. The goal of equal 
justice under law is one of the highest and most valuable ideals any 
nation can have. I am convinced that this Nation's strength is because 
of our legal system, our pursuit of truth and accuracy and fairness in 
giving everybody their day in court.
  We need to give nominees here their day in court. And if we do, John 
Ashcroft will be found to be a sterling nominee. The complaints that 
are made against him collapse in the face of the facts. And I believe 
that is plain and accurate. I think that is an accurate statement. It 
disappoints me to hear people persist in pursuing objections and 
complaints that, if fairly looked at and considered objectively, are 
not meritorious.
  Before I make my general remarks--and I will just respond to a few 
things that have been said--I would like to have printed in the Record 
a letter that was published in the Washington Post today. I ask 
unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Jan. 31, 2001]

                         Confirm John Ashcroft


                                               Alamerica Bank,

                                 Birmingham, AL, January 31, 2001.
       To Members of the United States Senate: I am an African-
     American from Birmingham, Alabama. I live in a state known 
     around the world for its long and ugly history of racial 
     segregation and pervasive discrimination.
       I am a former National Association for the Advancement of 
     Colored People (``NAACP'') and Southern Christian Leadership 
     Conference (``SCLC'') trial attorney and a staunch supporter 
     of each organization's mission and goals. After graduating 
     from law school in 1973, I spent the next two decades 
     litigating and winning landmark school desegregation, fair 
     housing and equal employment opportunity cases for the NAACP 
     and SCLC. In 1976, I obtained a full and complete pardon from 
     the State of Alabama for Mr. Clarence Norris, the last known 
     surviving ``Scottsboro Boy''.
       I voted for former President Bill Clinton twice and 
     supported him in his fight against impeachment. I also voted 
     for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman last Fall. I am a political 
     independent who assesses a political candidate or appointee's 
     fitness for office based upon the content of his character--
     NOT his party affiliation.
       I believe it is time for the United States Senate to 
     confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Here is why:
       1. As a former Governor and U.S. Senator, John Ashcroft may 
     have played political hardball, but he is not a racist.
       When John Ashcroft was first nominated to be Attorney 
     General, I read the newspaper stories about his successful 
     effort to defeat the federal judgeship nomination of Missouri 
     Supreme Court Justice, Ronnie White. I was highly concerned. 
     I watched the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. There, I 
     saw a different story. I learned that Messrs. White and 
     Ashcroft were skillful and brilliant players at the game of 
     legislative hardball.
       Mr. White, while a state legislator, used his powerful 
     committee chairmanship position to engage in political 
     jousting with then Governor Ashcroft. Years later, Mr. 
     Ashcroft continued the jousting by using his influence as a 
     Senator to defeat Mr. White's nomination to become a federal 
     district judge.
       The defeat of Justice White was hardball, not racism. Mr. 
     White himself testified that John Ashcroft was not a racist.
       2. It is time for America to have an Attorney General who 
     will enforce the law equally and fairly for all Americans.
       As Black Americans, we see the problem of crime in America 
     up close and personal. Black Americans are among its greatest 
     victims. For us, it is particularly important that the 
     enforcement of our law be strong, effective and fair.
       Mr. Ashcroft has also promised to investigate all alleged 
     voting rights violations, particularly those lodged in 
     Florida in the aftermath of last Fall's election. We expect 
     him to prosecute any criminal violations if federal laws 
     protecting voting rights were broken in Florida.
       3. It is time to restore civility and dignity to the Senate 
     confirmation process.
       Americans have watched the Senate confirmation process 
     deteriorate over the years since the Robert Bork nomination 
     in 1987. What used to be a calm exploration of a nominee's 
     qualifications often now becomes a trial by ordeal. Both 
     political parties decry the so-called ``politics of personal 
     destruction'' and then eagerly employ it. Special interest 
     groups on all sides regard a confirmation battle as a 
     fundraising opportunity and a test of strength, regardless of 
     its impact on the nominee. A vote for John Ashcroft will not, 
     in itself, restore civility to the confirmation process, but 
     it will help.
       It is time for all Americans to stop fighting the outcome 
     of last Fall's election and give President Bush a chance to 
     govern. President Bush has selected a diverse and inclusive 
     cabinet. We must give his team an opportunity to lead this 
     nation. If Mr. Ashcroft does not live up to his commitment to 
     enforce our federal laws on an even-handed basis, we can deal 
     with that in the political arena at a later date. Until then, 
     we should respect President Bush's choice for Attorney 
     General.
           Sincerely,
                                                Donald V. Watkins,
                                             Founder and Chairman.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, the letter was paid for by Donald V. 
Watkins of Birmingham, Alabama. He is one of Alabama's most prominent 
African American leaders, and he is an attorney. I went to law school 
with Don.
  He has been an active Democrat. He says in his letter that he 
supported the Gore-Lieberman ticket this time. He has been a lawyer for 
the NAACP and

[[Page 1167]]

the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a trial attorney, and ``a 
staunch supporter of each organization's missions and goals.''
  Don says it is time for us to restore civility and dignity to the 
Senate confirmation process. In effect, he says that President Bush has 
been elected. He made some promises. He promised to have a more diverse 
Cabinet. This civil rights advocate, this skilled lawyer says that he 
has followed those commitments and that what the African American 
community should do is to insist that he follows the other commitments 
he made and judge him on what he does, because he is the President, and 
we should give him a fair chance to succeed.
  He says John Ashcroft should be confirmed. Quoting from the letter:

       Americans have watched the Senate confirmation process 
     deteriorate over the years since the Bork nomination in 1987. 
     What used to be a calm exploration of a nominee's 
     qualifications now often becomes a trial by ordeal. A vote 
     for John Ashcroft will not, in itself, restore civility to 
     the confirmation process, but it will help.

  Don Watkins says:

       It is time for all Americans to stop fighting the outcome 
     of last Fall's election and give President Bush a chance to 
     govern. President Bush has selected a diverse and inclusive 
     cabinet. We must give his team an opportunity to lead this 
     nation. If Mr. Ashcroft does not live up to his commitment to 
     enforce our federal laws on an even-handed basis, we can deal 
     with that in the political arena at a later date. Until then, 
     we should respect President Bush's choice for Attorney 
     General.

  I think that says it well. I had no advance notice of this. I had no 
idea this would appear from this fine and skilled advocate for equal 
rights in America.
  I want to share a few matters that are important to correct. They 
have been repeated so often; I believe they are so incorrect that they 
ought to be responded to. First, in this town, people know who are 
honest and truthful--people who tell the truth, people who are straight 
shooters--it is pretty well known. And it is known those who cannot be 
trusted. There are not many you would trust on almost any matter 
whatsoever. John Ashcroft, though, is that kind of person. You have 
heard people say that repeatedly today and in days past. They know him. 
They respect him. He is a man of integrity, a man of religious faith, 
yes, a leader in his denomination, a man who is broadly respected all 
over America for the very qualities that are so much in need today.
  If anybody reads my mail and listens to the comments I am receiving 
from people with a longing and a deep concern about their country, that 
a man of this quality is beaten up and attacked and dismembered, in 
effect, while at the same time we have the same Members of this body 
who have been steadfastly and tenaciously defending the kind of spin 
that has gone on in this town that led to impeachment and other 
matters, they are having a difficult time comprehending that.
  Anyway, we are here. People have had their day. They have been able 
to appear at the hearing and present their charges. We, as Senators, 
are supposed to weigh them. It is all right. I believe in free debate. 
Nobody should be stifled--they ought to have their say. But we are not 
run here by special interest groups. Handgun Control does not control 
in this body. We take an oath to obey the law and to do justice here, 
not to kowtow to every group who builds up a campaign to pressure 
Members of this body to vote the way they want, threaten them that they 
won't support them in primary elections in the future, and otherwise 
make their lives miserable in every way they possibly can to get them 
to vote a certain way. They have a right to write and threaten and say 
they are not going to vote for somebody. It is a free country. But we, 
as Senators, have a right and a duty and a responsibility to do the 
right thing.
  I know there are some conservative groups who tried to pressure 
Chairman Hatch on some issues. He said: We are willing to listen to you 
and have your input, but I am a Senator. I happen to chair this 
committee. As long as I chair the committee, we are going to do this 
fairly and above board and no interest group is going to have an undue 
influence in how I do my job.
  That is a fact. People know that here. We need to remember that as we 
go forward with this process.
  One of the charges that has been made that is somewhat complicated, 
but at bottom is very simple, is this charge that John Ashcroft opposed 
integration. That is a bad thing to say. He came before the committee 
and looked us all in the eye and said: I support integration; I do not 
oppose integration. He said what he opposed was a Federal court plan 
that was extreme, in my view and in the view of a lot of legal 
scholars, to create a massive Federal intervention in the educational 
systems of Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri. In fact, the Federal 
court plans ordered an additional $3 billion in funding to be spent to 
carry out these plans. A lot of it was for busing; a lot of it was for 
other activities.
  This was a big deal. His predecessor opposed that court activity. His 
successor opposed it. His second successor opposed it. His second 
successor as attorney general was Jay Nixon, with whom I served when I 
was Attorney General of Alabama. Jay Nixon opposed this. He is a 
Democrat and was supported by two Members of this body in his effort to 
run for the U.S. Senate while he was resisting this litigation in the 
State. Why would we want to oppose that?
  The wording the complainers have used is that he opposed voluntary 
court desegregation or voluntary desegregation in Missouri.
  Let me tell my colleagues how that happens. I was Attorney General of 
Alabama. I have been through this. It is a common thing in America, as 
we try to deal with the vestiges of segregation. Some of it was legal. 
Some of it has been by just the nature of the residences that 
segregation occurred, and various efforts have been made to deal with 
this.
  It has been said: How did he oppose voluntary desegregation?
  This is what happened. Plaintiffs sued St. Louis and Kansas City. 
They sued the suburbs, and they got to court and claimed the school 
system is segregated by design, in effect. They object to it. They want 
it to end. The school systems resist, and the litigation goes on. And 
the judge in this case essentially suggested or indicated that he just 
might render an order that would eliminate all the suburban cities and 
merge them--at least their school systems--merge them with the St. 
Louis school system. We would just have one big school system. That is 
just what he might do, he said.
  So threatened with their very educational system at stake, they 
voluntarily, under those kinds of threats, agreed to a plan to spend a 
massive amount of money to bus students around in an effort to achieve 
racial balance, which the judge was pushing to make happen.
  They said: By the way, state of Missouri, you pay for it. We run our 
school system here, the city of St. Louis runs theirs, but we want you 
to pay the cost of this.
  The Attorney General of the State of Missouri was the one person who 
had a responsibility and a duty, the lawyer for all the people of 
Missouri, to question whether or not citizens all over the State ought 
to pay for this kind of massive plan.
  He objected to that. He resisted as did two of his successors who 
resisted it. In fact, one of the most infamous of all court plans was 
because a Federal judge ordered one of the school districts to raise 
taxes to pay for his idea of the school.
  That is what we are talking about--a consent decree. I have seen 
them. They will sue the prison system. The prison system will put up a 
little defense, or the mental health system, or the school system will, 
and they will go in and say: Judge, I guess you are right. Order the 
State of Alabama to give more money to run the prison. Order the State 
of Alabama to give more money to the mental health system because these 
are the people who would like to have more money because it is their 
system they are running, and they don't have an objective position. The 
attorney general is the one who has to represent the entire State and 
to question what is happening.

[[Page 1168]]

  Let me tell you why an attorney general has a particular duty to 
resist. He has a particular duty because this unelected lifetime-
appointed Federal judge who is saying he is going to abolish the school 
district and consolidate them into one, who is taking an action that 
violates the Constitution of the State of Missouri--violates the 
statutory laws of the State of Missouri, violates the duly elected 
school boards and districts, and the school boards' authority given to 
them by the people of the State of Missouri and people in that 
district. And he is going to rip all of that apart and impose his will 
on how education ought to be conducted in the targeted community in 
that state.
  Do you see how important this is for a principal attorney general. He 
should resist and defend unless it is absolutely clear that there is no 
other way that a constitutional deprivation can be ended. He should 
resist the compromise of the Constitution and laws of his State, as did 
his predecessor and as did his two successors. To say those acts of 
principal resistance to a Federal evisceration of the local educational 
scheme demonstrates lack of concern for children or somebody who wants 
to maintain segregation is just plain wrong. We ought not to twist 
those kinds of things today into that sort of mentality. I don't like 
that.
  There is one more thing I will mention--the Bill Lann Lee nomination, 
although I could do this on almost every allegation that is before us.
  Bill Lann Lee was opposed not just by John Ashcroft. He failed to 
come out of the Judiciary Committee on a tie vote, 9-9. I am not aware 
that John even spoke about it. Perhaps he did, but I do not know what 
he said. I do remember that I spoke against the Lee nomination. I 
remember Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee made an eloquent 
argument against Mr. Lee.
  I would like to mention a couple of things about that. Oh, Mr. Lee, 
is so terribly pitiful, that he has just been put upon and he has been 
abused, is what they would say.
  But let me tell you. We had a full hearing on the Adarand case. We 
had a hearing on that. Mrs. Adarand even came. Adarand, for purposes of 
background, is the case that sets out the law for quotas in America. 
They said you can't have racial set-asides and quotas. Mr. Lee refused 
to acknowledge the real meaning of Adarand.
  He said he would support Adarand, but when questioned in detail, he 
defined it in such a way that it was clear that the chief of the Civil 
Rights Division would not support the principle that Adarand stated. 
That is why the chairman of the Judiciary Committee opposed it. He made 
something like a 15-page speech on this floor and delineated in high 
style and with great legal expertise why this was important and why he 
reluctantly opposed this nomination. He did not attack--nor did any of 
one of us at any time attack--the character of Bill Lann Lee. We simply 
said that we believed he did not understand the meaning of that case 
and would not follow the law of the United States and, as such, that he 
should not be confirmed.
  That is what happened. To suggest that John Ashcroft went out of his 
way to block this nominee is just one more statement that is inaccurate 
and unfair to the good and decent man whom I believe will soon be 
Attorney General and whom I am confident will be one of the greatest 
Attorneys General in the history of this nation. People are going to 
appreciate him. He will restore dignity. He will restore integrity. He 
will bring personal probity and decency to that office and will, I 
believe, be greatly respected when he concludes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized
  Mr. ALLEN. I thank the Chair. I commend the articulate, 
knowledgeable, and eloquent Senator from Alabama for his remarks on a 
variety of issues.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ALLEN. I yield.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have received a statement from the 
editor of the Southern Partisan magazine that has been attacked here to 
some degree. I have never read the magazine. But it is a refutation of 
many of the statements made about the magazine. It certainly is proof 
that the magazine is in a much better light than it has been reported 
to be here on the floor.
  I note that Senator Ashcroft, when he was interviewed by it, simply 
did a telephone interview with the magazine. There was no evidence he 
ever read it, or saw it, or knew much about it.
  I think it would be healthy for the statement of Chris Sullivan, 
editor of the Southern Partisan, to be made part of the Record in which 
he flatly denies that he favored, or the magazine favored, segregation 
or other kinds of racially--discriminatory activities.
  I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                            Southern Partisan,

                                                 January 11, 2001.
     FROM: Chris Sullivan, Editor
     RE: Refutation of false reports now being circulated about 
         Southern Partisan magazine in an effort to damage John 
         Ashcroft
       A number of false reports are circulating in the national 
     press, alleging that Southern Partisan is a ``racist,'' 
     ``segregationist,'' ``secessionist,'' or ``white-
     supremacist'' magazine. This is part of an orchestrated 
     effort to embarrass Senator John Ashcroft for having once 
     been interviewed by our magazine.
       Most of the distortions can be traced to an article by 
     Benjamin Soskis in the New Republic which contained a series 
     of factual errors and distortions extracted from any sense of 
     fair or accurate context, some of which were clearly 
     malicious. People for the American Way subsequently loaded 
     all of those gross distortions onto their web-page. After 
     that, reporters and editorial writers for mainstream outlets 
     covering the presidential primary reported the errors as if 
     they were factual.
       For those who may be interested in the facts, I have 
     assembled the following item-by-item refutation of these 
     false reports:
       1. Senator Joe Biden said on Meet the Press that Southern 
     Partisan is ``a white-supremacist magazine, or so I've been 
     told.'' Others have labeled us ``neosegregationist'' and 
     ``racist.''
       Those charges are absolutely false. In 20 years of 
     publication, our journal has never advocated segregation, 
     white-supremacy or any form of racism. Indeed one of our 
     central purposes is to defend the South against such 
     stereotypical and reactionary attacks. Our editors and 
     contributors have included highly respected writers, 
     academics and journalists like Russell Kirk, Aleksandr 
     Solzhenitsyn, Murray Rothbard, Walter Williams, Anthony 
     Harrigan, Kenneth Cribb, J.O. Tate, Andrew Lytle, Cleanth 
     Brooks and many others.
       2. The allegation that John Ashcroft's interview is somehow 
     disreputable. A simple listing of others who have been 
     interviewed in our ``Partisan Conversation'' section (which 
     is where Ashcroft appeared) should suffice to rebut this 
     silly charge. Other Interviewees include NBC weatherman 
     Willard Scott, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, civil 
     rights activist James Meredith, poet laureate James Dickey 
     and political leaders like Senators Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, 
     Jesse Helms and Thad Cochran as well as Ashcroft (a list of 
     other interviewees is attached).
       3. The allegation that our magazine ``praises'' David Duke. 
     Absolutely not true. Twelve years ago, when Duke was running 
     for office in Louisiana, he claimed he had converted to 
     Christianity, renounced his past Klan involvement and 
     campaigned on a mainstream conservative platform. At that 
     time, we published a column defending the people of Louisiana 
     for taking Duke at his word. As it turned out, Mr. Duke was 
     deceiving everyone. In subsequent years he was rejected by he 
     voters of Louisiana, which was a happy ending. (I have 
     attached the full column in question, which is now 12 years 
     old, to show just how the meaning was twisted by the out-of-
     context quote. Item #1 shows he quote extracted by 
     ``researchers'' seeking to damage the magazine. Item #2 makes 
     the true meaning clear).
       4. The allegation that our magazine defends slavery. Again, 
     that outrageous idea got started by the New Republic. The 
     quote offered to ``prove'' we defend slavery was taken from a 
     book review of a scholarly work on slavery called Time on the 
     Cross. (Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman) One of the 
     findings of that book (based on plantation economic records) 
     was that slave families were not frequently broken up, 
     contrary to what was then a general view. Breaking up slave 
     families was bad for morale and therefore bad for business. 
     In preparing this memo, I consulted Dr. Walter Edgar's recent 
     book on the history of South Carolina, which has been widely 
     praised. Dr. Edgar is not a Republican or a conservative. The 
     1998 edition of his book has this to say on page 317:

[[Page 1169]]

     ``Owners realized that it was to their advantage to encourage 
     stable slave family life . . . Slaves who had families were 
     less likely to run away. . .'' Obviously, in no way is such a 
     point intended to justify or defend slavery, which was a 
     terrible national tragedy. The point the reviewer hoped to 
     make was that slavery was bad enough without being 
     exaggerated.
       5. The allegation that our magazine engages in ethnic 
     slurs. The quote most often offered to prove this allegation 
     was taken from a column Reid Buckley, William F.'s brother, 
     wrote for us 17 years ago. Here is what the New Republic 
     reported that Mr. Buckley had written:
       ``In 1987 the magazine offered a vision of South African 
     history straight from the apartheid-era textbooks: `God led 
     [Afrikaners] into the Transvaal, it was with God that they 
     made their prayerful covenant when they were besieged by 
     bloodthirsty savages on all sides.' ''
       Here is the actual text from which the quote was 
     dishonestly extracted:
       ``Then what demon has provoked their hateful policies? 
     Well, not demon, it transpires upon reading a little South 
     African history. God Almighty. In their view. [Emphasis in 
     the original] God led them into the Transvaal, it was with 
     God that they made their prayerful covenant when they were 
     besieged by bloodthirsty savages on all side.''
       It is obvious to even the most casual reader that Mr. 
     Buckley is actually criticizing the ``hateful policies'' of 
     apartheid, not defending them. The New Republic article 
     extracted a partial quote that completely reversed the 
     author's meaning. We can only assume that the distortion is 
     deliberate. Why else would the New Republic writer have 
     lifted only a portion of the passage?
       6. The allegation that our magazine sells hateful t-shirts 
     and bumper strips, including a shirt with Lincoln's image and 
     the legend ``sic semper tyrannis'' which are the words Booth 
     uttered before he shot Lincoln.
       There is a web site called pointsouth.com that apparently 
     sells a variety of Southern novelty items including bumper 
     strips. We have no ties whatsoever with that web site. For a 
     time, pointsouth.com carried a link to our web site. When we 
     discovered that they were selling bumper strips with messages 
     we found to be tasteless, we asked that the link be deleted. 
     It was.
       As to the Lincoln ``Sic semper tyrannis'' t-shirt: that 
     tasteless item has never been advertised or sold on the pages 
     of our magazine. Seven years ago, a part-time staff member of 
     our magazine offered to compile a catalog of Southern items 
     available--from various vendors--such as art prints, books, 
     ties, grits, t-shirts, etc., to raise money to help defray 
     the cost of the magazine. The catalog was compiled and mailed 
     to our readers as a separate brochure, without careful review 
     by our editors. The catalog included a ``tree of liberty'' t-
     shirt with the image of an oak tree and a quote from Thomas 
     Jefferson. Apparently the Lincoln image with the sic semper 
     tyrannis logo appeared on the reverse side of the t-shirt. 
     While the slogan was noted in the fine print, that face 
     escaped our attention. Nevertheless, it was advertised in the 
     catalog one time seven years ago. The catalog was cancelled 
     soon thereafter. Yes, the Lincoln message was in poor taste. 
     It was a mistake. We regret that it was sold through a 
     catalog our name was briefly associated with. But any effort 
     to hold Senator Ashcroft accountable for that is absurd.
       7. The allegation that our magazine is anti-Semitic.
       Of all the charges made, this is the single most baseless. 
     I do not believe Southern Partisan has ever published a 
     single negative comment about Jews. On the contrary, we have 
     published numerous very favorable articles on Jewish 
     Confederates and Judah P. Benjamin, pointing out that the 
     Confederate government had a Jewish member of its cabinet 50 
     years before the federal government. The charge of anti-
     Semitism against the magazine is completely unfounded.
       8. The allegation that we are hostile to Martin Luther King 
     Day.
       Two decades ago, there was widespread opposition to MLK Day 
     among conservatives all over the country. Around that time 
     (18 years ago in fact) we published a column suggesting that 
     other African-Americans in history might be more worthy of 
     elevation to holiday status. Examples of George Washington 
     Carver, Booker T. Washington and General Chappie James were 
     given. Of course, the debate is long over. MLK Day is now 
     accepted as a part of the nation's life. Nothing negative has 
     been written on our pages about MLK Day for the past 18 
     years. In fact, South Carolina, the State where we publish, 
     recently converted MLK Day from an optional to a free-
     standing holiday. The son of the writer who wrote that column 
     18 years ago is a member of the S.C. State Legislature. He 
     voted for the holiday with his Dad's support.
       9. The allegation that we are hostile to Nelson Mandela.
       Again, the column cited to support that allegation was 
     written over a decade ago. At the time, the idea that Mandela 
     had engaged in violence before his arrest and refused to 
     renounce violence as a precondition to release from jail was 
     widely reported. The views on Mandela expressed a decade ago 
     were conventional for conservative writers from all regions 
     of the country. In subsequent years, Mandela (who is now a 
     respected elder statesman) has changed his mind about 
     violence in the manner of Sadat and Begin.
       10. The allegation that our magazine called Lincoln ``a 
     consummate liar * * *''.
       The quote was taken from a speech given by the late Murray 
     Rothbard, a respected Jewish intellectual. He was president 
     emeritus of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, speaking at a 
     seminar on the cost of war. The introductory phrase left out 
     of Dr. Rothbard's remarks (which completely alters the 
     meaning) was this: ``Of course, Abraham Lincoln was a 
     politician which means he was a consummate liar, manipulator 
     * * *'' etc. The quote was followed by laughter from those in 
     attendance. In other words, it was a generic insult against 
     politicians intended to be humorous.
       The ten slanders listed above are the major ones we have 
     seen in the media for the past six months. There may be 
     others. If so, please let us know so we will have an 
     opportunity to defend ourselves. Our concern is not only with 
     the reputation of our magazine but also with all the people 
     who have written for us or been interviewed by us over the 
     years. They are innocent bystanders in this scorched earth 
     campaign to defeat Sen. Ashcroft. Their reputations are very 
     important to them and to their families.
       To our dismay, these slanders have metastasized like an 
     aggressive cancer throughout the national news media. In 
     fact, months ago, we sent all of the above corrections to the 
     People for the American Way with a polite request that they 
     correct their web site. They never did. It truly is shocking 
     that there are groups so radically committed to their 
     political agenda that they are willing to destroy reputations 
     falsely in an effort to prevent the appointment to a person 
     they disagree with.
       Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional 
     questions (803-254-3660).

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I rise as a new Member of the Senate, 
having listened to the arguments back and forth for several weeks on 
the matter of John Ashcroft's nomination as Attorney General of the 
United States.
  As a new Member, some of the arguments made, various votes and so 
forth are of interest, and there is some hyperbole to it.
  But let me tell you that coming out of the real world and going 
through a campaign and listening to people in Virginia and elsewhere, I 
think if there is one message that the American people sent to our 
country's leaders last November, it was this:
  The politics of personal destruction in our country must end. Sadly, 
there are some leaders of organized interest groups who have already 
turned a deaf ear to that message, even as we in the Senate are working 
so hard to move America forward in a bi-partisan manner.
  Of course, I understand that some of my colleagues may disagree with 
the philosophy of our new President and his choice for Attorney 
General. However, when the Chief Executive picks his management team, 
unless there is an extraordinary reason that would dictate otherwise, 
this body should not stand in his way or obstruct. Political 
opportunism is not an appropriate rationale for withholding consent for 
a nominee.
  When I served as Governor of Virginia, I was fortunate to have a 
capable cabinet who assisted me in managing the day-to-day operation of 
state government and advancing the agenda I established. While both the 
House and Senate in Virginia are required to approve of the Governor's 
selections, they have always, without exception, afforded the Governor 
the ability to name the qualified individuals he recruits to lead the 
team. No matter how distasteful the views of the nominee might be to 
some on the other side of the aisle, except for a very very few 
legislators, Republicans and Democrats alike have continuously 
respectfully rallied to put the best interests of Virginia ahead of 
political chicanery and that has effectively enabled Virginia's 
Governors to do the job they were elected to do.
  The federal government should be no different and John Ashcroft 
deserves the support of the United States Senate for Attorney General. 
He has proven himself a caring and capable leader during his many years 
of public service. Elected by the people of Missouri five times, his is 
a long record of achievement for all of the people he

[[Page 1170]]

has represented. It is incumbent on all of us to examine the totality 
of his record and to not be drawn to a single contorted, concocted 
blemish on a sterling 30-year record. As we proceed toward a vote on 
his nomination, we must understand what is in this man's heart, not 
what is displayed on the television screen in a 15-second distorted 
charge from heavily funded special interests.
  Mr. President, the people of the United States expect principled 
civil, debate here and in elections. In numerous elections all across 
the U.S. last year, voters rejected the politics of division. 
Virginians, like so many other Americans, want our country to heal 
itself and to move beyond scare tactics and personal destruction.
  We, here in the United States Senate, have the unique ability to 
prove to Americans that this noble goal is achievable. Let's move 
forward! I respectfully urge my colleagues to join together to rise to 
a higher plane and vote to confirm the honorable John Ashcroft as 
Attorney General of the United States.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong 
support for the nomination of our distinguished former colleague, John 
Ashcroft, to serve as Attorney General.
  The debate we have been engaged in is not about Senator Ashcroft's 
qualifications because they are not in question. He has a wealth of 
experience and a record of exemplary public service that spans three 
decades. Twenty years ago, I recommended him for Attorney General under 
President Reagan, and I would like to place that letter into the Record 
at the conclusion of my remarks. The intervening time has only made it 
more clear that he should serve in this position. Before I had the 
pleasure of working with him in the Senate and on the Judiciary 
Committee, he served two terms as Missouri's Attorney General and 
Governor. Senator Ashcroft is one of the most qualified people 
nominated for this position in all my years of public service.
  I recognize that some Senators disagree with some of the positions 
that he has taken during his almost thirty years in public life. As I 
said during his confirmation hearing, I hope the question will not be 
whether we agree with him on every issue. That is a standard he cannot 
meet for all of us. The President is entitled to some deference from 
the Senate in selecting those who will carry out the President's 
agenda.
  In the Senate, what we can expect is that the Attorney General will 
do his job and enforce all the laws, and Senator Ashcroft will. His 
record of enforcing laws that he did not support while serving as 
Missouri Attorney General should help prove it.
  We should keep in mind that all Attorneys General are called upon to 
enforce laws they do not support. The last Attorney General, Janet 
Reno, opposed the death penalty. I was one of many senators who 
strongly disagreed with her on this point, but we still supported her 
quick confirmation.
  During the extensive committee hearings recently, Senator Ashcroft 
did not have much time to talk about issues which will occupy most of 
his time as Attorney General, such as crime and drugs. In the Senate, 
he was a leader in fighting crime and helping keep drugs out of the 
hands of children. He also stood up for victim's rights. It should come 
as no surprise that the law enforcement community strongly supports 
him.
  Some of the toughest criticism of Senator Ashcroft's record is simply 
not warranted. For example, it was proper for him to oppose a judge-
imposed school desegregation plan in Kansas City called Missouri v. 
Jenkins. In that case, the judge ordered a massive tax increase to pay 
for his almost unlimited school improvements, which included a 2,000 
square-foot planetarium, a 25-acre farm, a model United Nations, an art 
gallery, movie editing rooms, and swimming pools. The plan was an 
elaborate social experiment in the name of education, and it utterly 
failed. Moreover, it established terrible legal precedent regarding the 
power of federal judges. I have introduced legislation in every 
Congress since to prohibit judges from being able to impose a tax 
increase. Elected state officials should represent their constituents 
and oppose activist federal judges like this, as long as they comply 
with the court after the case ends, as John Ashcroft did.
  On another matter, I believe it is highly unfortunate that some 
outside special interests have gone beyond specific issues in their 
attacks and have criticized ``Senator Ashcroft's identification with . 
. . religious, right-wing extremism.'' This Senate should not tolerate 
any effort to make a person's religious beliefs an issue in whether 
they should serve in a high government position. As the Union of 
Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America wrote to the Senate, ``this 
view has been the subtext for some of the criticism of Mr. Ashcroft. We 
are confident that you will reject it, as you would any other form of 
prejudice.''
  Senator Ashcroft has not only received strong support from well-known 
Christian organizations, such as the Christian Coalition, he has been 
endorsed by organizations of various religious faiths, such as the 
major Orthodox Jewish Organization, Agudath Israel of America. This is 
a testament to what kind of person John Ashcroft is.
  In fact, he should be praised for his deep religious convictions. It 
helps explain many of his fine traits. He is a man of honesty and 
integrity, and a person of strong moral character.
  I am confident that he will serve with dedication and distinction as 
the Nation's top law enforcement officer. America needs a man like 
Senator Ashcroft to lead the Justice Department. I urge all of my 
colleagues to look beyond partisan politics and support this 
exceptional candidate.
  I ask unanimous consent that the letter I referenced earlier be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, November 17, 1980.
     Mr. Edwin Meese III,
     Office of the President-Elect,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ed: Among the more important appointments that 
     President-Elect Reagan soon will make is that of Attorney 
     General of the United States. In this regard, I want to bring 
     to your attention The Honorable John Ashcroft, presently 
     Attorney General of the State of Missouri.
       John Ashcroft was elected the 38th Attorney General of 
     Missouri in 1976. He was just reelected to another term in 
     that office, demonstrating the trust that the people of 
     Missouri have in this very bright, very dedicated young man.
       I first met John Ashcroft in 1976. At that time, I was 
     immediately impressed with him. More recently, as I traveled 
     around the country speaking on behalf of Governor Reagan, I 
     had the pleasure of seeing John again. In fact, he introduced 
     me on one such visit to Missouri to attend a Reagan-Bush 
     rally.
       I consider John Ashcroft to be one of our more promising 
     young Republican leaders and believe that he represents the 
     kind of young but experienced talent that could be used well 
     in the Reagan Administration in the post of Attorney General.
       I am submitting a packet of informational materials on 
     John. I hope that you will review them carefully and that you 
     will conclude, as I have, that John deserves to be at the top 
     of your list of nominees for the post of Attorney General.
       If I can provide other, additional materials of assistance 
     to you in this regard, please let me know.
       With kindest personal regards and best wishes,
           Sincerely,
                                                   Strom Thurmond.

  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I rise to support Senator John Ashcroft 
for Attorney General, and will outline some sound business reasons for 
this position.
  Senator Ashcroft has proven himself the friend of American consumers, 
investors, and businesses, especially in the high technology sector 
which has driven much of the prosperity of the last long economic 
expansion.
  His potential leadership in the Department of Justice has been hailed 
as especially good news by high tech businesses and investors, whose 
retirement and pensions rely on the health of the technology stocks 
that have recently taken a beating.
  Indeed, James Lucier of Prudential Securities recently wrote to 
investors,

       Technology investors got their Christmas present three days 
     early on December 22

[[Page 1171]]

     when President-elect George W. Bush named . . . John Ashcroft 
     as his choice to serve as Attorney General . . . [W]e find it 
     hard to imagine Bush choosing a potential attorney general 
     with better qualifications than Ashcroft to restore investor 
     confidence and dispel the more extreme, valuation-depressing 
     fears of political risk at a time when Congress is set to 
     take up a slate of complex issues with ample potential to 
     raise blood pressures among the investor class.--Prudential 
     Securities, ``Washington Research, Washington World,'' 
     January 3, 2001, p. 1.

  In other words, according to some analysts, tech-sector investors who 
have been worried about their wealth or retirement security because of 
recent tech-stock losses can breath a little easier if John Ashcroft is 
confirmed as Attorney General. With so many Americans now relying on 
those investments, I think they need to understand that the partisan 
extremists fighting Senator Ashcroft could be putting at risk many 
Americans' economic and retirement security to satisfy their own 
political interests.
  His general approach of avoiding unnecessary regulation of and 
litigation against business will help foster a positive economic 
environment that is so important to all Americans.
  Senator Ashcroft has also played a role in helping consumers enjoy 
the benefits of technology. The same newsletter points out Ashcroft's 
role as Attorney General in Missouri authoring and filing an amicus 
brief joined by other state attorneys general supporting Sony 
Corporation's contention that consumers had the right to ``time-shift'' 
television broadcasts by taping on their VCRs in the famous Betamax 
Supreme Court case.
  He has worked to support the development of the Internet, to avoid 
taxes that would slow the growth of e-commerce; he has pushed to allow 
consumers and Internet users to use strong encryption to protect their 
privacy online, and to keep American companies at the forefront of 
encryption and software development.
  All in all, Senator Ashcroft's nomination and confirmation should be 
a boon to our economy, to investors, our businesses, and consumers. I 
would hope that consumers, investors, and all those who rely on a 
strong economy will make their support of Senator Ashcroft known to 
their Senators.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, I rise today to lend my voice to those 
of my colleagues in support of the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft 
for the position of Attorney General.
  I have known John Ashcroft for more than a decade. I first met him 
when I was mayor of Cleveland and he was Governor of Missouri, but I 
really got to know him through our service together in the National 
Governors' Association.
  John was the chairman of the National Governors' Association, and I 
had just joined the organization after being elected governor. My wife, 
Janet, and I were able to get to know John and his wife Janet on a 
personal basis.
  I could see almost immediately that John was a man who was dedicated 
to making a difference, and he wanted me to help in setting the NGA's 
education agenda.
  John appointed me to chair the NGA Bipartisan Taskforce on School 
Readiness. I will always be grateful for that appointment, because I 
quickly realized that the task force could serve as a forum in which to 
``air out'' new ideas on how best to help our kids learn. From that 
task force, we were able to develop a Whole School Initiative.
  I admired the leadership role John took at NGA, and our work together 
helped me to get to know John Ashcroft.
  Of course, nothing will help you get to know someone better than 
going fishing with them, and John and I have spent hours together 
fishing. I have spent enough time with him to get to know what is in 
his heart, and I can honestly say that he is one of the most honorable 
men I have ever met. He is, in every sense of the word, a gentleman.
  We in the Senate have been given a remarkable obligation by our 
Founding Fathers to provide the President of the United States our 
``advice and consent'' on certain Presidential nominees for Cabinet 
offices and other positions of governmental importance.
  It is a duty that all of us in this Chamber take seriously.
  Historically, members of the United States Senate have given the 
President--Republican or Democrat--the benefit of the doubt when it 
comes to the confirmation of a Cabinet official.
  On the rare occasion when a nominee fails, it is because the 
nominee's qualifications are lacking, or because a flaw in his or her 
character exempts them from successfully carrying out the duties of the 
office in which they would serve.
  However, in the case of President Bush's Attorney General nominee, 
John Ashcroft, there has been a steady stream of detractors who are 
trying to cast doubt on the character of John Ashcroft or misconstrue 
his record of accomplishments. I would like to say that those of us in 
this body who have worked with John Ashcroft, know the type of man he 
truly is.
  In my personal relationship with John, and in my evaluation of his 
ability to serve as Attorney General, I have seen only an individual 
with impeccable qualifications and unquestionable character.
  There is no doubt in my mind that John Ashcroft possesses the 
integrity and the experience necessary to carry out the duties of 
Attorney General. We all know his biography by now--elected for two 
terms to serve as the Attorney General for the state of Missouri and 
elected for two terms to serve as Governor of Missouri, and then 
elected to serve as United States Senator from Missouri.
  It is this record of public service that has made John Ashcroft the 
most qualified individual ever to be nominated to be Attorney General. 
Just look at some of our recent Attorneys General--Janet Reno, a 
prosecutor; Dick Thornburgh, a governor; Ed Meese, a district attorney.
  Of the 67 persons who have served in the office of Attorney General 
in the history of our nation, only one--John Ashcroft--has served as 
state attorney general of his state, and U.S. Senator--and only a 
handful have held two of these three offices.
  I might add that in each of the responsible positions he has held, he 
has served the people of Missouri with distinction.
  What is interesting, though, is how the special interest groups have 
``taken the gloves off'' in their opposition to John. They are working 
overtime to demonize Senator Ashcroft, trying to paint him as unfit to 
hold public office.
  But, we seem to have lost sight of the fact that the citizens of 
Missouri elected John Ashcroft 5 times to statewide office.
  The John Ashcroft that the interest groups are characterizing is not 
the John Ashcroft we all know, and in my view, he has been the victim 
of a vicious character assassination, the likes of which I have not 
seen in years.
  This is just wrong.
  This visceral opposition is being orchestrated by groups that I have 
to believe are making tons of money in their fundraising efforts by 
using John Ashcroft as a lighting rod.
  For example, some have raised the accusation that he is a racist 
because of his opposition to Ronnie White's nomination.
  John Ashcroft did speak against Ronnie White in a convincing way. 
John did have some influence over my decision to vote against Ronnie 
White, but I had no idea he was an African American. That was never 
even an issue in our discussions over the nomination of Ronnie White, 
and I want everyone to understand that.
  Anyone who knows my record knows that I do not tolerate racism or 
insensitivity to others, and I have no patience for individuals who 
espouse such views.
  In fact, in the more than ten years I have known John Ashcroft, I 
have never heard a word uttered from him that indicated any 
insensitivity to any minority groups. To the contrary, his 
accomplishments reflect a real level of support for the African 
American community.
  John Ashcroft signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute into law. 
He signed into law the bill establishing a Martin

[[Page 1172]]

Luther King, Jr., holiday in Missouri. He appointed the first African-
American woman to the Missouri Court of Appeals.
  He led the fight to save Lincoln University, founded by African-
American Civil War veterans--something that he and I have in common, 
given my work to save Central State University, a historically black 
university in Ohio. John also established an award in the name of 
renowned scientist, George Washington Carver.
  He also has been a leader in the opposition to racial profiling, 
convening the only Senate hearing on the subject to date. He voted to 
confirm 26 of 27 African American judicial appointees nominated by 
President Clinton that came to the Senate floor.
  John Ashcroft has worked with African Americans. He has appointed 
African Americans when he was Governor. He has worked on issues of 
importance to African Americans. That's why I cannot understand all 
this talk that John Ashcroft is somehow a racist.
  Does the Senate honestly think that the good people of Missouri would 
elect a racist? Do we honestly think John Ashcroft could have possibly 
fooled the people of the ``Show-Me State'' 5 separate times?
  John Ashcroft looks at his fellow human beings as in the image and 
likeness of God. Yes, he is a Christian, and he believes in the Two 
Great Commandments--love of God, and love of fellow man--and he follows 
the Golden Rule, but those traits are not--and should never be--
disqualifying traits.
  I have no question about what is in this man's heart, and I know that 
he will be impeccably impartial in carrying out his responsibilities. 
In fact, John Ashcroft will be scrupulous in carrying out the 
responsibilities of his office.
  Even with John's integrity, character and good sense, probably the 
loudest complaints about him seem to be from those individuals who 
believe that John will ignore or even seek to overturn laws he 
personally does not like. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  Throughout his many years of public service, John Ashcroft has been a 
sworn defender of the laws of the people--all of the people--and his 
record shows that he has not allowed his personal views to interfere in 
the pursuit of his duties.
  As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft strictly enforced laws 
that differed from his own views, including such items as: firearms--he 
determined, under Missouri law, that prosecuting attorneys could not 
carry concealed weapons; abortion--he determined, under the law, that 
hospital records on the number of abortions performed must remain 
confidential, and, he determined, under the law, that a death 
certificate was not legally required for fetuses under 20 weeks; and 
church and state--he determined, under Missouri law, that public funds 
were not available for private and religious schools even though 
federal grants permitted it, and he determined, under the law, that 
religious materials could not be distributed in public schools.
  I believe we all have faced laws or responsibilities that we must 
carry out that we may not necessarily agree with. I did so when I was 
Governor because I took an oath to uphold the law. So did John 
Ashcroft.
  For those who are not inclined to support the nomination of John 
Ashcroft, I need only refer to his testimony before the Senate 
Judiciary Committee. Senator Ashcroft gave his assurance--his word--
that as Attorney General he will uphold the law, including laws he may 
personally disagree with.
  The fact that he has his faith is one of the reasons why John 
Ashcroft has upheld the law and why he will uphold the law--because he 
has character, because he has principles, because he has a foundation, 
because he has roots and because he has grounding.
  I think in our assessment of John, all we need to do is look at our 
colleague, Senator Joseph Lieberman. Part of the reason why Senator 
Lieberman is where he is in life is due to his profound faith. He 
abides by his faith and it impacts on decisions he makes in the Senate 
and in his life.
  There are many other members of this Chamber who I believe are 
exactly the same; with their faith at the base of who they are, whether 
they are Jewish, Protestant, Catholic or whatever their religion.
  It is that faith that builds the character and builds the individual. 
It is what has made John Ashcroft.
  And I urge all of my colleagues to read an article written by one of 
Senator Ashcroft's former staff members, Tevi Troy, for the New 
Republic online. Mr. Troy, who is an Orthodox Jew, explains how faith 
has influenced John Ashcroft's deep respect for other religions, and 
how faith has shaped John Ashcroft to be the man he is today.
  In my family--and I would imagine in most families as well--when 
we're getting to know someone, we subconsciously subject them to what I 
call the ``kitchen test.'' Basically, the kitchen test is: is this 
person someone I would feel comfortable enough to bring to my home, to 
sit at my dinner table, with my family?
  John Ashcroft is someone I would be honored to have in my home, at my 
dinner table, with my family. He is a good solid man.
  Based on his record, John Ashcroft is fit in every way to be the 
Attorney General. He is a man of integrity, and I am completely 
confident that not only will he be fair and impartial in the 
administration of justice, but that he will insist that every employee 
at the Department of Justice do the same. He sets high standards for 
people.
  John Ashcroft's experience is more than enough to qualify him for the 
role as the nation's ``top cop,'' but the added bonus to his 
achievements is the fact that he is a man of character, and a man who 
believes that the law is the law, and not something with which to 
manipulate policy.
  Though some of my colleagues may not agree with his personal views, I 
urge them to look beyond their personal prejudices and look at John's 
record, his character, his integrity and his experience and give 
President Bush the man he wants to serve as Attorney General of the 
United States.
  I will vote in favor of the nomination of John Ashcroft to be United 
States Attorney General, and I sincerely urge my colleagues to give him 
their full support as well.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss my thoughts on 
the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be the United States 
Attorney General.
  One of the first issues I faced as a new Senator in 1989 was the 
controversial nomination of former Senator John Tower to be Secretary 
of Defense. As this was the first time I was faced with the Senate's 
constitutional ``advise and consent'' role, it was incumbent upon me to 
learn more about this important role through study and through 
conversations with my fellow Senators. It was also important to devise 
a standard to evaluate Presidential nominations so as to treat nominees 
of both Republican and Democratic Presidents with consistency and 
fairness.
  I came to the conclusion that my general policy should be to support 
nominations made by a President, provided that the individual is 
appropriately qualified and capable of performing the duties of the 
position. A President is entitled to a Cabinet of his or her own 
choosing unless a nominee is proven unethical or unqualified. I would 
not oppose a nominee just because I disagree with them on a policy 
matter.
  For judicial branch nominations, however, I apply a different 
standard. I have made this distinction between executive and judicial 
nominees throughout my Senate career. For example, during the 
consideration of Clarence Thomas' nomination to the Supreme Court in 
1991, I argued that:

       By no means does a president, even one of my own party, 
     have the right to pick virtually anyone he wants who meets 
     minimal qualifications with respect to character, legal 
     ability and judicial temperament. This is not a pass-fail 
     test. In my mind, such a process is entirely proper for 
     appointees to the executive branch of government. The 
     president should be given wide latitude in selecting his 
     Cabinet secretaries and key agency personnel. But under the 
     Constitution,

[[Page 1173]]

     such deference is inappropriate in the confirmation of 
     Supreme Court justices.

  I used this policy in evaluating Presidential nominations throughout 
the Bush Presidency and the subsequent Clinton Presidency, and will 
continue to use this standard to evaluate the nominations put forth by 
our current President. In order to determine a nominee's qualifications 
and capabilities, I review the statements of nominees, follow the 
hearings conducted on a nominee, and listen to the opinions expressed 
by my colleagues. I have done all of these in the case of this 
nomination and I am here today to express my support for the 
confirmation of John Ashcroft to be the next United States Attorney 
General.
  A review of Senator Ashcroft's record shows that he is qualified to 
serve in the position of United States Attorney General. He has a long 
and distinguished tenure in public service, serving as Missouri's 
Attorney General, Governor and Senator. During his terms as Governor, 
John Ashcroft served as Chairman of the Republican Governors' 
Association and as Chairman of the National Governors' Association. In 
addition, during his tenure in the Senate he served on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee and chaired the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 
the Constitution.
  Senator Ashcroft is also capable of performing the duties of United 
States Attorney General as he is a fair and judicious individual. Some 
have raised questions concerning his ability to enforce laws he has 
opposed in the past, but during a meeting I had with him he assured me 
that as Attorney General he would work to uphold the laws of this 
nation, including those with which he disagrees. I believe that these 
qualities prove Senator Ashcroft to be capable of performing the duties 
of Attorney General and will serve him well in this role.
  As anyone can tell from our records, Senator Ashcroft and I have very 
different opinions on many important issues, including abortion, civil 
and gay rights, and environmental protection. I will continue in my 
role as a Senator from Vermont to support legislation upholding the Roe 
v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, protecting access to clinics that 
perform abortion services, combating employment discrimination and hate 
crimes based on sexual orientation, and protecting our environment. I 
will also closely follow the decisions Senator Ashcroft makes as 
Attorney General and speak out when I feel those decisions are wrong. 
However, while we may have different opinions on many issues, in my 
mind that alone is not enough to disqualify a nominee.

                          ____________________