[Pages S981-S1008]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROGRAM

Mr. LOTT. On Tuesday, following the weekly recess, at 2:15 we will
proceed to the nomination of Robert Zoellick

[[Page S982]]

to be USTR for up to 2 hours. Therefore, a rollcall vote will occur at
4:15 on Tuesday on that nomination, by a previous consent. On
Wednesday, the Senate is expected to consider the U.N. dues bill.
Therefore a vote or votes could occur, then, on Wednesday of next week
relative to that legislation, and on Thursday with relation to the
pipeline safety bill.
I yield the floor.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, while my friend from Mississippi is still
here, I ask unanimous consent, it is only a matter of a few minutes,
that I still have the full half hour that had been reserved under the
previous order.
Mr. LOTT. Are you making a request or observation?
Mr. LEAHY. I make it as a request because the time that the
distinguished leader took went into that time.
Mr. LOTT. I certainly would not object to that. I do wish to speak
briefly myself. I believe I would be in control of the time after that.
Mr. LEAHY. In fact, I will add to that: In doing so, that it not
impinge on the time reserved for the distinguished majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, as we get to the end of this debate, I
think it is wise if we look at some of the facts of the debate and not
just the rhetoric.
We debated this matter virtually nonstop from 10:30 yesterday morning
until 8:10 yesterday evening. We did it without intervening business. I
do not think we had as much as 5 minutes expended in quorum calls. For
our side, this was certainly not a dilatory debate but a substantive
one. It was not the politics of personal destruction, but the Senate
exercising its constitutional responsibility to examine one of the most
important nominations that this President or any President could send
to the Senate.
Let's go over the facts. The Senate received the President's
nomination on Monday afternoon of this week. The Judiciary Committee
debated this nomination on Tuesday afternoon the following day, and
voted on it that evening. We began the Senate debate yesterday morning,
less than 48 hours after receiving the nomination. We are concluding it
in less than 14 and one half hours of Senate debate. We are voting up
or down on this nomination this afternoon.
I mention this because I have heard those who point to the nomination
of the last Attorney General, Janet Reno, as some sort of model of
speedy confirmation. She was nominated after an earlier nomination had
hearings and was withdrawn. Her nomination was not voted upon for a
month after she was nominated. By comparison, we are voting on John
Ashcroft when his nomination has been before us for only less than
three days. That was not a controversial nomination. Republicans, as
well as Democrats, came to the floor to praise her record, but she was
still not sworn in until mid-March.
A better comparison would be to find the last controversial
nomination; that was that of Attorney General Meese. He was first
nominated in January 1984 by President Reagan. He was finally
considered by the Republican-controlled Senate in February 1985, 13
months after being nominated. Five weeks ensued between his nomination
and his initial hearing.
The nomination underwent 7 days of hearings, involved nearly 50
witnesses, under a Republican-controlled Senate, when he was Republican
nominee by a popular Republican President. He was reported by the
Judiciary Committee, a Republican-controlled Judiciary Committee, by a
12-6 vote, not the lesser margin of 10-8 by which the Ashcroft
nomination was reported.
The Senate, with a Republican majority leader, allowed 2 weeks
between the committee vote and Senate consideration--2 weeks, not the
17 hours we had on the Ashcroft nomination. The Senate debated the
Meese nomination over 4 days, on February 19, 20, 21, and 23--not the
day and a half devoted to the Ashcroft nomination. Then, the
Republican-controlled Senate voted 63-31 to confirm Attorney General
Meese.
I believe those 31 negative votes were the most ever against an
Attorney General. Even as the very popular President Reagan was
preparing to begin his second term, the nomination of his Attorney
General resulted in 7 days of Senate hearings, 4 days of Senate debate,
and 31 votes in opposition. I mention this because there was some
suggestion that maybe some on this side held this up. This nomination
was handled a lot more rapidly done than at the time of Attorney
General Meese.
The Senate is soon going to vote on the nomination of John Ashcroft
to be Attorney General. I think it is safe to say that all of us in
this body would like to be able to vote in favor of the next Attorney
General. Those of us who are going to vote no on this nomination take
no pleasure in doing so. Frankly, I have heard many say--and I feel
this myself--we wish the President had sent a different nomination for
this critical job. We wish, if he wished to have our colleague, Senator
Ashcroft in the Cabinet, that he had nominated him for a different
position. We wish the President had adhered to the standard he set
forth in his own inaugural address and that he had sent us a nominee
who would unite the country and have the utmost credibility with the
disaffected, dispossessed, and disenfranchised.

We knew the nomination of Senator Ashcroft had become a ``done deal''
weeks ago. The Republican leadership reported that all 50 Republican
Senators would be voting in favor of this nomination, and, of course,
with the Vice President they would be able to win.
This decision was made before any hearing, before the nominee
answered any question, written or oral, before any background check or
review of his record was ever begun, let alone completed. That is why
some members of the Judiciary Committee on the other side went so far
as to argue that the committee need not hear testimony from the public
at all, and need not review the nominees's required financial
disclosures, papers required of every nominee.
Most Democratic Senators, I am happy to say, declined to prejudge the
matter. As chairman during the 17 days of the Judiciary Committee
hearing, I expedited a balanced hearing to review the nominee's record
and to hear people from Missouri and others, pro and con, on this
important nomination. We had virtually an equal number for Senator
Ashcroft as against him--I think actually one more for. But I believe
that all Senators can be proud that our hearings focused on issues, not
on the nominee's personal life. We can also be proud of the tone set
during this debate on the Senate floor.
But there is one big exception. I take strong exception--in fact, the
strongest terms I can think of in my 26 years in the Senate--to the
characterization we have heard about the issue of religion and this
nomination. The Senate was told that opponents of this nomination have
implied that Christians have no place in public life.
If that charge was not on its face so absolutely preposterous in this
body, it would have invited several hours of discussion to set the
record straight. It is such an untrue and inflammatory assertion.
Needless to say, if that was the debate, it would be fair to
speculate that many, probably most of President Bush's nominees are
Christians and confirmed by this body. All of his nominees are
confirmed. I know of none planned, or who have been announced by the
distinguished leader as ready for votes, who are not going to be
confirmed. If their religion has been mentioned at all, it has been
mentioned to their credit.
Is it really necessary to point out that men and women of Christian
faiths are plentiful in both parties in these very Halls of Congress?
More to the point, there are good people, who are Christians, on both
sides of the Ashcroft nomination, just as there are good people, who
are not Christians, on both sides of the Ashcroft nomination. In fact,
the reason religion has come up during these confirmation proceedings
is not because of John Ashcroft's religious beliefs, but because of
concern about the level of tolerance he may show towards those with
different religious beliefs. That is why his visit to and acceptance of
an honorary degree from, and comments made during the hearings about
Bob Jones University, have been a legitimate concern to many.
The relevance of Senator Ashcroft's association with Bob Jones
University

[[Page S983]]

is not about his own religious beliefs. It is about what it says about
Senator Ashcroft's sensitivity and tolerance towards those whom that
institution regards in such negative ways, and treats so differently.
The policies of that institution have been to bar African Americans, to
bar interracial dating, and to derogate Mormons and Catholics as
belonging to cults.

That John Ashcroft does not seem to fully understand the concern that
this causes to many Americans is itself troubling to so many. We have
heard from some the term they have seemed to coin: ``religious
profiling.'' I will say it once again as clearly as I can. No Senator
on either side of the aisle during these proceedings has sought to
apply any religious test to John Ashcroft. No Senator has sought to tar
the nominee as a racist. Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs have not
been a source of inquiry or concern for any member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Notwithstanding, ironically enough, what Bob Jones University has
said about Catholics and Mormons--with the two leaders of this
committee being one a Catholic and the other a Mormon--both Senator
Hatch and I have said we have never once heard Senator Ashcroft take
the position that Bob Jones University has towards us or anybody of our
religions.
This confirmation debate has not been about religious profiling. If
anything, this is a nomination struggle about issue profiling, and
those issues include the nominee's record on civil rights and women's
rights, the rights of gay Americans, and voter registration.
Those supporting this nomination argue that he should be confirmed
because his religious devotion represents a special, unimpeachable
level of integrity, and that his religion makes him more likely to
abide by his oath of office. My view is that religion is neither a
qualification nor disqualification for public office. I hold deep
religious beliefs. But as I told someone as I left church this Sunday,
this past Sunday: I would not expect anybody to vote either for or
against me because of my religious beliefs.
I would expect them to vote for or against me because of my political
beliefs.
Indeed, article VI of the Constitution prohibits any religious test
as a qualification for public office. I hope Senator Ashcroft's
supporters are not urging any form of such unconstitutional test.
The issue is his public record, not his religious faith. I and
several others have said how much we admire his commitment to his
family and his religion. I consider those two of the most admirable
qualities in our former colleague. The issue, though, is how he has
fulfilled his public duties.
Senator Byrd posed the question yesterday whether any man's past can
withstand scrutiny. Confirmation hearings should not be held to dissect
a nominee's personal life--and this one did not--but they are to
examine his past record and actions, to hear from the nominee about how
he views his prior positions and actions within the perspective and
wisdom that time should bring.
What I observed of this nominee at his hearings can be summed up in
two words: No regrets.
He had no regrets about the aggressive manner in which he litigated
in opposition to a voluntary desegregation plan in St. Louis, or about
the missed opportunity to resolve that divisive matter, about his use
or his involvement for political gain, or about the misleading
testimony he initially gave the committee about whether the State of
Missouri was a party to the litigation and had been found liable.
He had no regrets about vetoing two bills designed to ensure equal
voting rights for African American voters in St. Louis.
He had no regrets about appearing at Bob Jones University, and he
even testified that he might return there after being confirmed as
Attorney General of the United States.
He certainly passed up the opportunity, as has been suggested, now
that he knows so much about Bob Jones University, to take the honorary
degree, put it in an envelope, and send it back. He had no regrets
about granting an interview to the Southern Partisan and praising this
neo-Confederate magazine and appearing to embrace its point of view.
One of the things that bothered me greatly is that he had no regrets
about his treatment of Judge Ronnie White, Ambassador James Hormel,
Bill Lann Lee, Judge Margaret Morrow, or any of the other Presidential
nominees he opposed.
Each of us has a duty to determine how we exercise our constitutional
duty of advise and consent. As I said at the outset of this debate,
strangely enough--or perhaps not so strangely--the Constitution is
silent on the standard we should use in deciding how to fulfill our
advise and consent duty.
I have thought about this over the years, and I have come to the
conclusion that it is testament to the wisdom of the framers because,
in the end, those who elect us have the final say in whether they
approve of how we conducted ourselves and, if they approve, of how we
exercised our constitutional responsibilities.
Some have argued that the issues that have arisen during this
confirmation process have been generated out of thin air by advocacy
groups or by Senators who oppose this nomination. In fact, these are
the same issues upon which the voters of Missouri based their verdict
on election day last November, an election Senator Ashcroft lost.
John Ashcroft's actions toward Judge Ronnie White and his association
with Southern Partisan magazine and Bob Jones University were hotly
debated in Missouri. They were issues in his unsuccessful reelection
campaign.

The Kansas City Star noted in November 1999:

A lot of Missourians are still struggling to understand why
Sen. John Ashcroft took out Ronnie White.

Rallies for Judge White were held in downtown St. Louis. Local groups
circulated petitions calling for Senator Ashcroft to ``publicly
retract'' his comments in Southern Partisan. At least one Missouri
municipality passed a resolution asking Senator Ashcroft to ``cease the
promotion of Jefferson Davis'' and other Confederate leaders in
Southern Partisan, and they criticized his actions with respect to
Judge White.
Another Missouri city council passed a resolution asking Senator
Ashcroft to apologize to Missouri residents for his comments in
Southern Partisan.
Yesterday, an old friend, a Republican, contacted me to share a quote
from Reinhold Niebuhr:

Man's capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but
man's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.

In this regard, I note that we heard often about John Ashcroft's past
election victories in Missouri. What has gone unmentioned is the fact
that the voters of Missouri registered a negative judgment on the
politics, policies, and practices of John Ashcroft just last November.
Not surprisingly, they are the same issues that have arisen during his
confirmation debate. We heard during our hearings how African American
voters of Missouri had voted overwhelmingly against him.
John Ashcroft's stubborn defense of his past record and the fact he
has no regrets over incidents that concern many of his Missouri
constituents and that now concern many Americans does not instill
confidence. On the contrary, to many it is a troubling signal. He lacks
the sensitivities and balance we need in the Attorney General. We need
an Attorney General who has the trust and confidence of the American
people and who is dedicated to protecting the rights of all of us.
Remember, the Attorney General is not the President's lawyer. He has
a White House counsel. The White House counsel is not required to come
to the Senate for confirmation. The Attorney General is there for all
of us--black, white, rich, poor, Democrat, Republican, no matter who we
are.
The American people are entitled to an Attorney General who is more
than just a friend to many of us in the Senate, as John Ashcroft is a
friend, and who promises more than just the bare minimum, that he will
enforce the law. All Americans, whether they are part of the 100
Members of a Senate club, no matter what they may be, all Americans,
the 280 million other Americans who do not serve here, are entitled to
someone who will uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme
Court, who will respect the Congress

[[Page S984]]

and the courts, who will abide by decisions with which he disagrees,
and enforce the law for all people regardless of politics. They are
entitled to someone whose past record demonstrates that he or she knows
how to exercise good judgment in wielding the enormous discretionary
power of the Attorney General.
I said before that we cannot judge John Ashcroft's heart, nor should
we be able to, but we can examine his record. And running through that
record are disturbing recurrent themes: Disrespect for Supreme Court
precedents with which he disagrees; grossly intemperate criticism of
judges with whom he disagrees--the ``ruffians in robes'' comment--
insensitivity and bad judgment on racial issues; and the use of
distortions, secret holds, and ambushes to harm the careers of those
whom he opposes or for political gain.
I engaged in a colloquy yesterday with the senior Senator from
Virginia during this confirmation process. Senator Warner is a dear and
valued friend. We have been friends for decades. He observed that he
thought the hearings and consideration by the Senate will result in
John Ashcroft being a stronger, more deeply committed public servant.
It is my fervent hope that John Ashcroft has come to understand the
reasons that many of us are troubled by his record and troubled by the
manner in which he responded to our concerns at the nomination hearing.
I hope Senator Ashcroft better appreciates the concerns of the
significant number of Americans who oppose this nomination. Public
opinion polls show there are as many people opposed to the nomination
as support it. For those who doubt the promise of American justice--
and, unfortunately, there are those in this country who do, for
whatever reason--this nomination has not inspired confidence in the man
nominated to head the U.S. Department of Justice.
If John Ashcroft is to be confirmed, then he is going to have a lot
of work to do to prove that the President's choice was a wise one, and
that he will be the people's lawyer and defender of their rights--all
the people.
The country is sharply divided about this nomination, but so is the
Senate. I wish the President had sent the Senate a nominee who would
unite us and not divide us, but that did not happen.
I hope the President knows--after this debate, and after this
divisive election--the task of bringing the Nation together still lies
ahead of us. I hope all of us will be able to help in that uniting.
I think nothing I will ever do in my life will mean as much to me as
serving in the Senate. I have served with 280 or so Senators, who have
all been people I have admired and respected. I hope that after this
nomination, and after this battle--however the vote comes out; I expect
I know how it will come out--then the Senate will work together, on
both sides of the aisle, with the new President, and with all members
of his Cabinet, and with the new Attorney General, to start healing
these wounds, to not just talk about bringing us together, but to
actually do it.
There are deep, deep concerns in the country about this nomination. I
would suggest that every one of us--Republican and Democrat--have a
long road ahead of us to bring those sides together, but on that long
road we also have the responsibility to take that trip.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Missouri.
Mr. BOND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in
the Record some materials that I believe will be relevant to the
consideration of this nomination: a letter from the National Sheriffs'
Association; a letter from the Missouri Sheriffs' Association; a
written statement of Sheriff Kenny Jones before the Committee on the
Judiciary; and testimony of U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof before
the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

National Sheriffs' Association,

Alexandria, VA, October 4, 1999.
Hon. John Ashcroft,
U.S. Senate, Hart Senate Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Ashcroft: I am writing to ask you to join the
National Sheriffs' Association (NSA) in opposing the
nomination of Mr. Ronnie White to the Federal Judiciary. NSA
strongly urges the United States Senate to defeat this
appointment.
As you know, Judge White is a controversial judge in
Missouri while serving in the Missouri Supreme Court. He
issued many opinions that are offensive to law enforcement;
one on drug interdiction and one involving the death penalty.
Judge White feels that drug interdiction is not a proper
function of law enforcement. He wrongly reasons that drug
abuse is a private matter that causes no public harm, and
drug abusers should not be inconvenienced by interdiction
efforts. We strongly disagree. Drug interdiction is a
cornerstone in the fight against crime, and this reckless
opinion undermines the rule of law.
Additionally, Judge White wrote an outrageous dissenting
opinion in a death penalty case. In 1991 Pam Jones, the wife
of Sheriff Kenny Jones of Moniteau, Missouri, was gunned down
while hosting a church service at home. The assailant, who
was targeting the Sheriff, was tried and convicted of murder
in the first degree. He was subsequently sentenced to death
for Mrs. Jones' murder. During the appeals process, the case
came before the Missouri Supreme Court where six of the seven
judges affirmed the conviction and the sentence. Judge White
was the court's lone dissenter saying the assailant had a
tough childhood and was therefore not accountable for the
heinous crime he committed. In our view, this opinion alone
disqualifies Judge White from service in the Federal courts.
He is irresponsible in his thinking, and his views against
law enforcement are dangerous.
We urge you in the strongest possible terms to actively
oppose the nomination of Judge White. He is clearly an
opponent of law enforcement and does not deserve an
appointment to the Federal Judiciary. His views and opinions
are highly insulting to law enforcement, and we look forward
to working with you to defeat this nomination.
Respectfully,
Patrick J. Sullivan, Jr.,
Sheriff.

Missouri Sheriffs' Association,

Jefferson City, MO, September 27, 1999.
Senator Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, Dirksen Senate Office
Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hatch: Attached please find a copy of the
dissenting opinion rendered by Missouri Supreme Court Judge
Ronnie White in the case State of Missouri, Respondent, v.
James R. Johnson, Appellant.
Also, please find attached a copy of a petition signed by
92 law enforcement officers in Missouri, including 77
Missouri sheriffs.
In December 1991, James Johnson murdered Pam Jones, wife of
Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones. He shot Pam by ambush,
firing through the window of her home during a church
function she was hosting. Johnson also killed Sheriff Charles
Smith of Cooper County, Deputy Les Roark of Moniteau County
and Deputy Sandra Wilson of Miller County. He was convicted
and sentenced to death. When the case was appealed and
reached the Missouri Supreme Court, Judge White voted to
overturn the death sentence of this man who murdered Mrs.
Jones and three good law officers.
As per attached, the Missouri sheriffs strongly encourage
you to consider this dissenting opinion in the nomination of
Judge Ronnie White to be a U.S. District Court judge.
Sincerely,
James L. Vermeersch,
Executive Director.
____

Written Statement of Sheriff Kenny Jones Before the Committee on the
Judiciary, Confirmation Hearings of John Ashcroft, U.S. Attorney
General Designate, January 2001

Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, Members of the Judiciary
Committee, I am honored and a little overwhelmed to be here
today to testify on the nomination of John Ashcroft to be
Attorney General of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Kenny Jones and I am the elected
Sheriff of Moniteau County, Missouri, an office I have been
privileged to hold for the last sixteen years. For those who
may not know, Moniteau County is a very small unusually quiet
county in mid-Missouri with a population of approximately
13,000. We are a strong tight knit community in the heartland
of America. We believe in traditional values and we have a
deep faith. We are small town America at its best.
As you know, much has been said about John Ashcroft and his
fitness for this office. I for one support his nomination and
urge this Committee to support him as well. Last year,
Senator Ashcroft was unjustly labeled for his opposition to
the nomination of Judge Ronnie White to federal district
court. This one event has wrongly called into question his
honor and integrity. Be assured that Senator Ashcroft had no
other reason that I know about, to oppose Judge White except
that I asked him too. 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 December 1991, James Johnson changed the lives of many
families in our small rural community. He held an elderly
woman hostage, killed four people, and seriously

[[Page S985]]

wounded another. Johnson murdered in cold blood, the sheriff
from a neighboring county, two deputy sheriffs, and my wife,
Pam Jones. For this, he was tried by a jury, convicted of
four counts of first degree murder, and sentenced to death.
To understand just how horrid this event is and to
comprehend the devastating impact this crime has on my
county, you need to understand the facts of that December
night. It is easy to talk about dissenting opinions and legal
maneuvering in this case and take the human tragedy out of
it. But, that is a mistake. This case is entirely about human
tragedy and justice. Not a day goes by that I don't think
about what James Johnson did to my family and my community.
Can you even imagine how it forever changed life in a small
Missouri community?
On the evening of December 9th, Deputy Leslie Roark, was
dispatched to the residence of James Johnson on a domestic
disturbance call. After arriving on the scene and speaking
with Johnson, his wife and his stepdaughter, Deputy Roark
apparently ascertained they were all fine. He could not have
been more wrong. As Deputy Roark turned to leave, Johnson
pulled a gun and shot him in the back. My deputy fell face
down, rolled over, and struggled to defend himself. Johnson
then shot Les in the forehead at point-blank range. After
shooting Leslie Roark, Johnson armed himself with more
weapons and drove to my house in rural Moniteau County
looking for me. I was not home. I had taken my two sons to
their 4-H Club meeting. My wife, Pam, and our two daughter
were home, however. They were hosting a Christmas party for a
group of local churchwomen and their children. Upon arriving
at my house, Johnson opened fire on completely innocent
people. He fired several shots through a bay window, hitting
my wife who was sitting with my daughter on a bench in front
of the window. After the assault on my home, Johnson went to
the home of Deputy Russell Borts and shot him, also through a
window, as he was talking on the telephone. Russ lives today
with several injuries inflicted by Johnson.
During the attack on my family and Deputy Borts, a call for
help went out and many officers from surrounding counties
responded to my office. Sheriff Charles Smith, from Cooper
County personally responded to the call for help. What he did
not know was that Johnson had moved down the block from the
Borts residence and was laying-in-wait at my office. As
Sheriff Smith was getting in his car, Johnson gunned him down
in front of the Moniteau County Sheriff's Office. Just
moments later, Johnson shot and killed Officer Sandra Wilson
who had driven in from Miller County responding to the call
for help. It is important to note that this coward never once
confronted his victims fact to face. Every single person he
shot and killed was shot in the back.
Before Johnson was apprehended, he held an elderly woman
hostage until for some unknown reason, he released her. She
escaped and told the authorities where Johnson was hiding. A
team of negotiators finally convinced Johnson to surrender
and he was taken into custody.
After dropping off my boys at 4-H, I found out that Les
Roark had been shot. I went to be with him while we waited
for the Life Flight helicopter. While there, I received the
call that would change my life forever. I was told of an
emergency at my own house. I raced home. There I saw an
ambulance in the driveway and shocked people standing around.
My secretary, Helen Gross, told me that Pam had been shot and
our daughters had been taken to a neighbor's home. Pam was
flown by helicopter to the University of Missouri Hospital. I
gathered my four children and went to Pam's side. She died
just a short time later.
James Johnson was tried, convicted and sentenced to death
by a jury in February 1993. Every one of his appeals,
including his appeal before the Missouri Supreme Court, was
denied. In the Missouri Supreme Court, all but one of the
judges affirmed the decision of the lower court. The only
dissent was from Judge Ronnie White. 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 Johnson killed were not given a second chance.
When I learned that Judge White was picked by President
Clinton to sit on the federal bench, I was outraged. Because
of Judge White's dissenting opinion in the Johnson case, I
felt he was unsuitable to be appointed for life to such an
important and powerful position. During the Missouri
Sheriffs' Association Annual Conference in 1999, I started a
petition drive among the sheriffs to oppose the nomination.
The petition simply requested that consideration be given to
Judge White's dissenting opinion in the Johnson case as a
factor in his appointment to the federal bench. Seventy-seven
Missouri sheriffs, both Democrats and Republicans, signed the
petition and it was available to anyone who asked. I have the
petition with me and respectfully ask that it be made a part
of the record of this hearing. A copy was forwarded to both
Senator Bond and Senator Ashcroft. I also asked that the
National Sheriffs' Association support us in opposing Judge
White's nomination. They willingly did so and I am grateful
that they joined us and wrote a strong letter opposing Judge
White's nomination.
While some would have you believe otherwise, this is the
only reason sheriffs opposed the nomination of Judge White.
We contacted Senator Ashcroft and urged him to oppose this
nomination as well. He agreed with our position, but
unfortunately, his view on Judge White's nomination was
misrepresented in the press and misrepresented to other
members of the Senate. People alleged all sorts of reasons
for the eventual defeat of Judge White's nomination. I can
only speak for myself and can only testify to what I know to
be true. I opposed Judge White's elevation to the federal
bench solely because of his opinion in the Johnson case.
Johnson murdered my wife in cold blood. He killed three close
friends and colleagues and seriously wounded a fourth.
Offering him a second chance as Judge White would do, is
something that I will never understand. I asked Senator
Ashcroft to oppose the nomination based on what I have shared
with you here during this hearing. By opposing the nomination
of Judge White, Senator Ashcroft did nothing more than
properly exercise Constitutional authority based on the
information he had available. I hope this information will
correct the record and prove that John Ashcroft did not act
with an unseemly intent.
To deny John Ashcroft and reject his nomination to be
Attorney General based solely on his opposition to Judge
White would be wrong and a terrible loss for the country. I
hope my testimony today provides the information you seek to
make a truly informed decision on John Ashcroft. In my view,
he will make a fine Attorney General and I hope that he will
be confirmed. Thank you Mr. Chairman and I stand ready to
answer your questions.
____

Testimony of U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof Before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Judiciary, January 18, 2001

I would like to thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member
Hatch for the opportunity to testify before this committee.
I fully support President-elect Bush's decision to nominate
Senator John Ashcroft to the position of Attorney General.
His past service to the people of my home state of Missouri
as Attorney General, Governor and Senator give him the
experience and knowledge to be an effective agent of justice
for all Americans.
I am not here today as a U.S. Representative from
Missouri's Ninth District. My appearance here is to share
with you my unique knowledge of the case of State of Missouri
vs. James Johnson.
From February of 1989 until January of 1996, I served as a
Special Prosecutor for the Missouri Attorney General's
Office. In this capacity, my duties included the prosecution
of politically sensitive or difficult murder cases across the
State of Missouri. I handled cases in 53 Missouri counties
and have tried and convicted violent criminals in more than
60 felony jury trials. In January, 1992, I was assigned as
co-counsel in the prosecution of the Johnson case.
As you know, the Johnson case has taken on national
prominence, but not because it involves a convicted cop
killer. It has become a focal point in this process due to
the strong disagreement that John Ashcroft and some law
enforcement groups had with Missouri Supreme Court Judge
Ronnie White's sole dissent on the appeal of this case.
You are measuring John Ashcroft's ability to be the
nation's Attorney General by examining his record. In the
same manner, John Ashcroft measured Ronnie White's ability to
be a federal jurist by scrutinizing his record and published
opinions--not his race as some have charged. John Ashcroft
has testified that he had serious reservations about Judge
White's opinions regarding law enforcement.
Let me share with you the facts of the Johnson case:
In December of 1991, Moniteau County Deputy Sheriff Les
Roark responded to a domestic disturbance call at the home of
James Johnson in rural Missouri. After assuring himself the
domestic quarrel had ended, Deputy Roark turned to return to
his waiting patrol car. James Johnson whipped a .38 caliber
pistol from his waistband of his pants and fired twice at the
retreating officer. Johnson, realizing that Roark was
clinking valiantly to life, walked over to the fallen officer
and shot him again execution-style.
He next negotiated the dozen or so miles to the home of
Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones. Peering through the
window, he saw Pam Jones, the sheriff's wife. She was leading
her church women's group in their monthly prayer meeting in
her family's living room, her children at her knee. Using a
.22 caliber rifle, Johnson fired multiple times through the
window, hitting her five times. She was gunned down in cold
blood in front of her family.
I wish I could tell you that the carnage soon ended.
Instead, James Johnson proceeded to the home of Deputy
Sheriff Russell Borts. Displaying the methodical demeanor of
a calculating killer, Johnson shot Deputy Borts four times
through a window as Borts was being summoned for duty via
telephone. Miraculously, Borts survived. Cooper County
Sheriff Charles Smith and Miller County Deputy Sandra Wilson
were not so fortunate. They died in a hail of bullets when
Johnson ambushed them outside the sheriff's office.
As a result of Johnson's rampage, three dedicated law
enforcement officials were dead, one was severely injured and
Pam Jones, a loving wife and mother, had been slaughtered.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to clarify a few of the points raised
during yesterday's hearing regarding the quality of James
Johnson's representation at trial. Mr. Johnson hired counsel
of his own choosing. He chose a team of

[[Page S986]]

three experienced defense attorneys who possessed substantial
experience in litigation and criminal law. The three
litigants had tried a previous capital case together.
The record conclusively establishes that counsel launched a
wide-ranging investigation in an effort to locate veterans
who had served with the accused in Vietnam. Counsel hired and
presented three nationally-renowned mental health experts on
the relevant issue of posttraumatic stress disorder.
The evidence of guilt, however, was unassailable. Based on
the strength of a detailed confession by the accused to law
enforcement officers, incriminating statements to lay
witnesses, eyewitness accounts to one of the murders and
circumstantial evidence, including firearms identification,
James Johnson was convicted by a jury of four counts of
murder in the first degree. The jury later unanimously
recommended a sentence of death on each of the four counts.
After a lengthy post-conviction hearing on the adequacy of
counsel, Circuit Judge James A. Franklin, Jr. found that
Johnson's attorneys devoted a significant period of time and
expense to his case, including a substantial attempt to
develop and present a mental defense. The court found as a
matter of law that James Johnson received skilled
representation throughout his trial. The case was then
automatically appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court, where
the convictions and sentences were upheld 4-1. Judge White's
lone dissent focused on inadequate assistance of counsel at
trial. As I have stated and the record indicates, this is
clearly not the case.
I have been deeply troubled during these confirmation
proceedings by statements insinuating, overtly or otherwise,
that John Ashcroft is a racist. More to the point, there have
been allegations made that John Ashcroft's rejection of Judge
Ronnie White's nomination to the federal district court was
racially motivated. As a Missourian, I am offended by these
baseless claims.
It is my belief that members of this distinguished panel
and members of the entire Senate take the constitutional role
of ``advice and consent'' very seriously. It is an integral
part of our system of checks and balances.
It is my humble opinion that no individual took that
responsibility more seriously than your former colleague,
John Ashcroft. As evidence of that fact, I cite to you the
October 5, 1999, Congressional Record:
``[Mr. Ashcroft] Confirming judges is serious business.
People we put into these Federal judgeships are there for
life, removed only with great difficulty, as evidenced by the
fact that removals have been extremely rare. There is
enormous power on the Federal bench. Most of us have seen
things happen through judges that could never have gotten
through the House and Senate. Alexander Hamilton, in
Federalist Paper No. 78, put it this way:
`` `If [judges] should be disposed to exercise will instead
of judgement, the consequence would equally be the
substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative
body.'
``Alexander Hamilton, at the beginning of this Nation, knew
just how important it was for us to look carefully at those
who would be nominated for and confirmed to serve as
judges.''
Former Senator Ashcroft then elaborated on the dissenting
opinions by Judge White in a series of criminal cases,
including State of Missouri v. James Johnson. He acknowledged
an outpouring of criticism levied against Judge White's
nomination by respectable law enforcement groups. His
ultimate rejection of Judge White's nomination was based on
his judgement and legal reasoning. As you know, a majority of
the Senate voted to reject the nominee.
Reasonable minds can differ on John Ashcroft's conclusion
regarding Judge White's fitness as a federal jurist. These
differences should be vigorously debated and considered. That
is the hallmark of our republic. But branding a good man who
has devoted his professional life to one of public service
with the ugly slur of ``racist without justification or cause
is intolerable.
I know John Ashcroft. He is an honorable man of high
integrity and morals. His commitment to his family, his state
and his country are beyond compare. His experience and public
service make him very qualified to be the next Attorney
General of the United States. You have his assurance that he
will faithfully execute the law in a way consistent with the
will of Congress, in accordance with the rulings of our
judicial system and in a manner that protects the liberties
of all Americans.
Again, I would like to thank Chairman Leahy, Ranking Member
Hatch and this distinguished panel for allowing me to
testify.

Mr. BOND. Mr. President, 28 years ago, I had the responsibility to
appoint a State auditor for Missouri. Based upon what I saw to be the
promise in John Ashcroft--his character, intelligence, and commitment
to public service--I selected him.
For the past 28 years, I have had the honor and privilege to work
with him as he handled his duties in the best and highest tradition of
Missouri and of this country. Many of my colleagues have also seen him
during the last 6 years, when he served with distinction in the Senate.
I know this man. Most of you in this body know this man. He is a good
man, whose service reflects well on his friends, his family, our State
of Missouri, and on this great body.
Everything about John Ashcroft's record of public service and his
personal integrity and character tells us that he will be faithful to
the law. Everything about John's career also tells us that he
understands one thing above all else: The promise contained in this
Nation of laws can only be realized when all the laws are properly
enforced.
Two weeks ago, I went before the Judiciary Committee to ask that they
judge John Ashcroft's nomination to be Attorney General on the content
of his character, and reject the slime campaign then underway against
him.
Today I must say I stand here profoundly disappointed so many failed
to push away those whose only goal is to tear down and destroy.
However, let me add my sincere appreciation of the fact that some of
our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have chosen to support
this nomination, despite the strong political winds blowing against
them, including clear-cut threats of retaliation at the polls for any
vote in favor of John Ashcroft.
Senator Russ Feingold was courageous in casting the lone Democratic
vote in favor of the nominee in committee. My friends, Senator Byrd,
Senator Dodd, and others, have announced on the floor they intend to
support the nominee for reasons they gave. I commend them and thank
them for that.
I note that others of my colleagues appear to have given the
nomination full consideration and concluded, for their own substantive
reasons, not to support this nomination. While I disagree with their
final decision, I certainly cannot condemn their actions. But I am
deeply disturbed and disappointed in some of the things done and said
in the Judiciary Committee and some of the remarks made on the Senate
floor.
Over the past month, we have seen self-described spokesmen of various
activist groups--groups that preach tolerance, diversity and religious
freedom--systematically display their intolerance, narrowness, and
dogmatic views, as they try to smear the record of the man who has been
nominated to be the Attorney General of the United States.
In fact, I think the words on this chart tell us all we need to
know--this is from the special interest groups of what they are doing--
``by any means necessary.'' ``We're going to spend whatever it takes.''
These are the words of the extreme liberal groups that are out to
sabotage John Ashcroft and, incidentally, his nomination. The purpose--
search and destroy.
Like millions of Americans, I watched the Senate confirmation hearing
to see both how my friend would do in answering questions defending his
record but also to see how potential opponents would handle their
responsibilities.
I, too, hoped for full and fair hearings.
Two weeks ago, the American people did not see a confirmation
hearing. They did not see the Senate Judiciary Committee acquit itself
in the best and highest traditions of this fine body. They did not see
full and fair hearings. What they saw--pure and simple--was an exercise
in political theater of the worst kind.
I cannot begin to express my profound disappointment in how some of
my colleagues handled their few days in the majority--mishandled their
days to rise above the rancor. In the Ashcroft hearing, there was an
opportunity to set an example for us to follow for the rest of this
session. Instead of rising to the occasion, too many sank to the level
of the interest groups, where only the shrillest survive.
What we heard was a campaign designed to create a caricature, and to
fan the grotesque charges of racism, bigotry, and so-called political
opportunism--a campaign so out of control that 2 days of questions were
not enough. An extra day of attack witnesses, and hundreds of
additional questions--often asking the same questions over and over
again--were then submitted for the record. They even went so far as to
ask for a ``complete discussion'' of all conversations that then-
Senator Ashcroft had with Senate leaders about any of the 1,600
Presidential nominations considered by the Senate during his term.

[[Page S987]]

That is an impossible task. Nobody can recall those. The reaction was
that the answers were incomplete, when they did not report all those
conversations. Who of us could have done that unless we had carried a
tape recorder in our pocket at all times.
To the special interest groups who invented the term ``Borking,'' I
had little expectation they could or would understand or embrace the
terms of civility and respect. So I expected that false charges would
be leveled--repeated and repeated--in hopes that something would stick.
But I had hopes that colleagues would resist those charges. Too often,
they did not.
What are those false charges? One of the false charges thrown against
John Ashcroft was that he could not be entrusted to enforce laws with
which he personally disagrees. Now, Janet Reno opposed the death
penalty, yet she was trusted to follow the law. Now, 8 years later, why
is it that with John Ashcroft, a conservative and committed Christian,
doubts are aired--and given credence--about his ability to enforce the
law?
Some activists who claim to embrace and promote religious diversity
and tolerance seem unable to extend their beliefs to a conservative
Christian. I thought we broke that barrier when John F. Kennedy became
President and we saw the obvious that he did not put his Catholic
beliefs above the law of the land. And what of our colleague Joe
Lieberman, whose candidacy for Vice President and his public religious
utterances tore down even more barriers? Should religious diversity and
tolerance be extended only to some religions and not others? What we
see in this part of the smear campaign against John Ashcroft is nothing
less than religious bigotry.
Second, we have seen the absolutely reckless charge that John
Ashcroft opposed desegregation. Several Members have attempted to use
the long, tortured and controversial school desegregation cases in the
State of Missouri to color further their caricature of John Ashcroft as
insensitive and an extremist. To do so, however, they have to ignore
the facts of the case, the various tortured rulings, the victory in the
Kansas City case, the fiduciary duty of the Attorney General and the
widespread opposition to the court-ordered desegregation plan by the
public and elected officials alike.
The truth of the matter is that the desegregation cases were filed in
St. Louis and Kansas City in 1972, with Kansas City being litigated
until 1995 and the St. Louis case being litigated until 1999. The
lawsuits and the various court orders have been opposed by Democratic
and Republican Governors, Attorneys General and State Treasurers and
the overwhelming majority of Missourians for nearly three decades. To
single out John Ashcroft and to say his positions on the case and his
work was that of an extremist insensitive to the needs of Missouri
school children is one of the more misleading positions ever staked out
on this floor.
Since I cannot imagine that colleagues and critics would have one set
of standards for John Ashcroft, and another for those in their own
party, it is only fitting that we review the whole record of the day.
In September of 1981, in response to the controversial Eighth Circuit
decision, the current Minority Leader of the House of Representatives,
Richard Gephardt, introduced a constitutional amendment to ban court
ordered busing to achieve racial integration. Congressman Gephardt was
also a sponsor of legislation to bar federal courts from mandating
busing as a remedy for segregated schools. In explaining his
legislation, the esteemed minority leader called busing for
desegregation ``a total failure'' and called the court-ordered busing
program in the St. Louis schools ``an obscenity and a crime against the
youth of St. Louis.'' About the same time, again while Senator Ashcroft
was Missouri Attorney General, Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton, my
predecessor, stated publicly that he ``personally opposes court ordered
busing'' and did not believe the St. Louis plan would work. While in
the Senate he fought the Department of Health, Education and Welfare
practice of denying funding to school districts that do not have a
school desegregation plan in place.
Beyond that, both Missouri State Treasurers who served while John
Ashcroft was Attorney General, both of whom were Democrats, opposed the
court ordered desegregation. In fact, the second of those Treasurers,
the late Mel Carnahan, was highly critical of both Attorney General
Ashcroft and me for the handling for the desegregation case. He was not
critical of anyone opposing the plan, rather he felt the Attorney
General was not being aggressive enough in the fight. In 1981, he told
UPI, ``In my opinion, they have not staffed up and produced in this
case and that's the reason we're where we are today on desegregation.''
And in 1983, as he was gearing up to run for Governor, Treasurer
Carnahan even took the unusual action of requesting a state
appropriation so that the Treasurer's office could join the case,
initiating new litigation against the federal court order desegregating
the St. Louis schools. The Treasurer said the desegregation payments
represented ``burdensome demands on the taxpayers of the state.'' He
further stated ``my staff and I have been intensely studying the
financial problems created for the State of Missouri by the court
orders in the St. Louis desegregation case. It is my intention to file
additional actions or motions directed to testing the issues of state
liability for payments . . . I plan to use outside counsel for a
separate additional effort to supplement and complement the efforts of
the Attorney General to reverse or modify the orders as to state
financial liability.''
As Governor, I refused to support the appropriation because it was
the job of the Attorney General to handle legal matters that impact the
state. But that statement by the state Treasurer, a Democrat and future
Governor, shows that John Ashcroft was clearly in the mainstream and
representing the people of the state in a complicated and controversial
legal matter. Unless of course Mel Carnahan was an extremist too. The
strong democratic opposition did not stop in the eighties but continued
right on through the '98 election cycle. In fact, the current Missouri
Attorney General, Democrat Jay Nixon, made opposition to state
involvement in school desegregation a platform of his first campaign
for Attorney General, calling busing ``a failed social experiment''
that must end in the State of Missouri. And he criticized Ashcroft and
Webster, the two previous Attorneys Generals by stating ``The
republican team hasn't been fighting the battle against unfair
desegregation payments; they've been losing it.'' ``We need new and
better lawyers to win the case.''

Upon taking office, Nixon filed suit to end state involvement in the
St. Louis desegregation case and filed suit to overturn a court
decision in Kansas City. Shortly after that he appealed and fought the
Kansas City plan all the way to the United States Supreme Court. In St.
Louis, he criticized the appointment of a well respected St. Louisan
appointed to negotiate a settlement. He even filed suit on the eve of
the beginning of the school year to bar student participation in a St.
Louis city-county transfer program.
Former Congressman Bill Clay, in a letter to President Clinton,
sharply criticized the Democratic Attorney General as ``waging
unremitting warfare'' against the court orders which ``provided
educational opportunity for many thousands of students in St. Louis''.
Nixon was also repeatedly criticized by the St. Louis chapter of the
NAACP for his efforts. In 1995, the group said those efforts ``will
wipe out the gains made by desegregation and deprive city parents of
opportunities they now have to better their children's education''. The
Kansas City Star said this Attorney General ``climbed over the backs of
African Americans'' to advance his career.
Yet when this man wanted again to advance his political career, was
the Senator from Massachusetts condemning his actions? Quite to the
contrary, the Senator from Massachusetts was actively promoting his
political career, even headlining a fund raiser for him here in
Washington. Nor can I imagine the Senator labeling the positions of
Congressman Gephardt, former Senator Eagleton, and the late Governor
Carnahan, whose campaign the Senator from Massachusetts supported, as
extreme. The hypocrisy could not be clearer. And leads us back to those
guiding principles of this entire effort against John Ashcroft--by

[[Page S988]]

any means necessary, and spend whatever it takes.
The third charge centers around his handling of the nomination of
Judge Ronnie White. Much has been said about this, but let me simply
say that the emotional power and pain of the Johnson case remains as
strong today as it was 10 years ago when the brutal murders tore apart
the lives of 4 families and their communities.
For all my colleagues who agreed with Judge White's reasoning that
would have tossed out the conviction and granted a new trial to the
triple cop-killer who also killed the sheriff's wife right in front of
her 8 year old daughter; for those who agreed with his lone dissent
that Johnson's lawyers didn't do a good enough job so he deserves a new
trial--I would hope they would channel their strong views and weigh in
with Missouri's Governor in seeking a commutation of his death
sentence. Johnson's appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court has been denied
and he now sits on death row. I can certainly provide any of you the
correct address of the Governor in Jefferson City.
Finally the latest attempt to smear--so weak that's it more of a
smudge--was made by a democrat activist who claimed that 16 years ago
John Ashcroft asked a legal but inappropriate question during a job
interview. Quickly refuted by others present in the interview this
attempted smear fades from view, but again takes time and energy to
respond to. And when all one's energy is spent knocking down false
charges it is hard to find the time to talk about what you believe can
be accomplished at the Justice Department--which of course is what the
people of America are really interested in. How will you do the job?
What are your plans to improve the lives and opportunities for all
Americans?
So where does all this leave us? Back where we started.
A conservative, pro-life, Christian simply isn't fit to serve
according to the litmus test of a bunch of left-wing groups. And rather
than admit it, the smokescreen of false charges must be used to justify
their own intolerance. It is a sad day that we have come to this. But
through it all John Ashcroft has stayed firm. Firm in his belief that
in America our sense of fairness will outweigh short term political
gain. Firm in his belief that while his attackers have been shameless
and unrelenting, that he should not, and will not respond in kind.
I am so proud of John Ashcroft. I am proud of his service to Missouri
and the nation over the last 28 years. At each level of responsibility,
he not only acquitted himself as a gentleman and good American, but he
did great work on behalf of so many citizens. That is true of his terms
as Missouri Attorney General. As Governor. And United States Senator.
He is a fine man. He is a gentleman. A good man of deep conviction who
will do great service on behalf of all Americans as our next Attorney
General. So I am also very proud that a fellow Missourian will become
the next Attorney General of the United States of America. But perhaps
most of all, I am proud to be able to call John Ashcroft my friend.
I yield the floor.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, today I will vote to confirm
former Senator John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States.
The President of the United States has the constitutional authority to
nominate those individuals he thinks will most ably advise him;
therefore, I give President Bush latitude in choosing the members of
his Cabinet. My role in this process, as defined by the Constitution,
is to give my advice and consent to the President on his nominees for
Cabinet positions. In keeping with that duty, I want to present a clear
explanation as to why I will vote to confirm the President's choice for
Attorney General.
I have known John Ashcroft for well over 10 years. We both have had
the honor to serve as the Chief Executive for our respective States. We
were even colleagues for 2 years when our terms as Governor overlapped.
I am familiar with his philosophy and his viewpoints and though we do
not see eye-to-eye on every issue I respect him as a person and
consider him a friend.
But before my statement is dismissed as a rubber stamp approval, let
me be clear: My vote to confirm Senator Ashcroft is not without some
concerns. I am disappointed with his decision to accept an honorary
degree from Bob Jones University, an institution that has become a
national symbol for racial and religious intolerance, without any
acknowledgement or discussion let alone repudiation of that school's
policies that were egregious. And secondly, his handling of the Judge
White nomination was considered by many of his former colleagues to
have been unfair.
But these two instances, while troubling, are not disqualifying. For
me this vote today is an affirmative vote as a prologue to the future
rather than a reaction to the past. This is supported by his pledge he
made at his confirmation hearing to serve as Attorney General for ``all
the people.''
I take Senator Ashcroft at his word when he says, and I quote, ``I
understand that being Attorney General means enforcing the laws as they
are written, not enforcing my own personal preferences. It means
advancing the national interest, not advocating my personal interest.''
Throughout his confirmation hearing, Senator Ashcroft was unequivocal
and unwavering with respect to the manner in which he would serve, if
elected, as Attorney General.
Additionally, yesterday I spoke to Senator Ashcroft and expressed my
reservations and concerns. In that conversation, he reiterated his
commitment to lead a professional and nonpartisan Justice Department,
and assured me of his intention to honor his pledge.
For me, this affirmative vote is not about politics; it is about
potential and opportunity. If Senator Ashcroft is a man of integrity--
which he says he is and which I believe him to be--then he will uphold
his constitutional duty, prove his nay-sayers wrong, and work
tirelessly to help ensure justice for all. Indeed, the stakes are high,
but that is exactly where Senator Ashcroft has put them. I look forward
to working with him and to helping him keep his unequivocal promise to
the American people.
Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, Senator Ashcroft has
received broad bipartisan support from a number of organizations. I ask
unanimous consent that a list of 332 organizations supporting Senator
Ashcroft be placed in the Record.
There being no objection, the Material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

332 Organizations Endorsing John Ashcroft for U.S. Attorney General

(Compiled by the Free Congress Foundation)

48th Ward Regular Republican Organization (Chicago), 60
Plus Association, A Choice for Every Child, Adirondack
Solidarity Alliance, Alabama Citizens for Life, Alabama
Policy Institute, Alaska Catholic Defense League, Alaska
Right To Life, America's Survival, Inc., American Association
of Christian Schools, American Association of Pro-Life
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Center for Law and
Justice, American Civil Rights Coalition, American Civil
Rights Union, American Conservative Union, American Council
for Immigration Reform, American Decency Association,
American Family Association, American Family Association of
Arkansas, American Family Association of Colorado, American
Family Association of Kentucky, American Family Association
of Michigan, American Family Association of Mississippi,
American Family Association of New Jersey, American Family
Association of New York, American Family Defense Coalition,
California Central Coast Chapter.
American Freedom Crusade, American Immigration Control,
American Land Rights Association, American Policy Center,
American Pro-Constitutional Association, American Renewal,
American Shareholders Association, Americans for Ashcroft,
Americans for Military Readiness, Americans for Tax Reform,
Americans for the Right to Life, Americans for Voluntary
School Prayer, Americans United for the Unity of Church and
State, Arkansas Family Council, Association of American
Educators, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons,
Association of Christian Schools International, Association
of Concerned Taxpayers, Association of Maryland Families,
Baptist International Missions, Inc.
Brass Roots, BrotherWatch, California Public Policy
Foundation, California Republican Assembly, Calvary Baptist
Academy, Campaign For California Families, Capital Research
Center, Catholic Citizens of Illinois, Catholicvote.org,
Center for Military Readiness, Center for Pro-Life Studies,
Center for Reclaiming America, Center for the Study of
Popular Culture, Christian Coalition of Alabama, Christian
Coalition of America, Christian Coalition of California,
Christian Coalition of Florida, Christian Coalition of
Georgia, Christian Coalition of Maine, Christian Coalition of
Montana, Christian Coalition of Ohio, Christian Coalition of
Rhode Island, Christian Schools of Vermont, Christian Voice.

[[Page S989]]

Christus Medicus Foundation, Citizen Soldier, Citizens
Against Government Waste, Citizens Against Higher Taxes,
Citizens Against Homicide, Citizens Against Repressive
Zoning, Citizens for a Sound Economy, Citizens for Community
Values, Citizens for Constitutional Property Rights, Citizens
for Excellence in Education, Citizen for Law and Order,
Citizens for Less Government, Citizens for Traditional
Values, Citizens United, CNP Action, Inc., Coalition for
Better Community Standards, Coalition for Constitutional
Liberties, Coalition for Local Sovereignty, Coalition on
Urban Renewal and Education, Coalitions for America, Colorado
Association of Christian Schools.
Committee for a Republican Future, Concerned Citizens
Opposed to Police States, Concerned Women for America,
Concerned Women for America of Colorado, Concerned Women for
America of Kansas, Concerned Women for America of
Mississippi, Concerned Women for America of New Jersey,
Concerned Women for America of North Carolina, Concerned
Women for America of N.E. Texas, Concerned Women for America
of S.E. Texas, Concerned Women for America of Utah, Concerned
Women for America of Virginia, Connecticut Eagle Forum,
Conservative Caucus, Inc., Conservative Party of New York
State, Conservative Party of Ontario County, New York,
Conservative Victory Funds, Constitution Party of Vermont,
Coral Ridge Ministries, Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc.,
Council of Conservative Citizens, Inc., Crime Victims United
of California, Culture of Life Foundation, Cutting Edge--A
Talk Show, Defenders of Property Rights, Delaware Christian
Coalition, Delaware Home Education Association, D.T. Crime
Victims Bureau.
Eagle Forum, Eagle Forum of Alabama, Eagle Forum of Alaska,
Eagle Forum of Arkansas, Eagle Forum of California, Eagle
Forum of Georgia, Eagle Forum of Mississippi, Eagle Forum of
New Jersey, Eagle Forum of North Carolina, Eagle Forum of
Ohio, Eagle Forum of Oklahoma, Eagle Forum of Rhode Island,
Eagle Forum of South Carolina, Eagle Forum of Wisconsin,
Eastern Orthodox Women's Council of Greater Bridgeport,
English First, Environmental Conservation Organization, Erie
Citizens Against Pornography, Evergreen Freedom Foundation,
Families Allied for Intelligent Reform of Education, Families
and Friends of Murder Victims, Family Association of
Kentucky, Family First, Nebraska, Family Life Communications,
Family Policy Network, Family Research Council, Family
Research Forum of Wisconsin.
Family Research Institute of Wisconsin, Family Taxpayers
Network, Florida Eagle Forum, Inc., Focus on the Family,
Fraternal Order of Police, Freedom Alliance, Friends of
Oregon, Georgia Report, Global Evangelism Television,
Government Is Not God--PAC, Graham Williams Group, Granite
State Taxpayers, Guardians of Education for Maine, Hawaii
Christian Coalition, Heritageridge Church and School, Home
Education Radio Network, Home School Legal Defense Assoc.,
Human Life Alliance, Illinois Assoc. of Christian Schools,
Illinois Citizens for Life, Illinois Right to Life Committee,
Independent Women's Forum, Indiana Eagle Forum, Information
Radio Network, Institute for Justice, Int'l. Assoc. of Chiefs
of Police, Iowa Family Policy Center, Islamic Institute
Foundation.
Justice Against Crime, Justice for Murder Victims, Kansas
Conservative Union, Kansas Eagle Forum, Kansas for Life,
Kansas Taxpayers Network, KBRT AM 740 (Costa Mesa, CA), KFLR
Radio (Phoenix, AZ), Landmark Legal Foundation, Landowners
Assoc. of North Dakota, Law Enforcement Alliance of America,
League of American Families, Liberty Counsel, Life Action
League of Massachusetts, Life Advocacy Alliance, Life
Coalition International, Life Decisions International, Life
Issues Institute, Life Legal Defense Foundation, Los Angeles
Coalition of Crime Victims Advocates, Louisiana Family Forum,
Madison Project, Maine Right To Life Committee, Inc.,
Maryland Constitution Party, Maryland Taxpayers Association,
Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
Massachusetts Eagle Forum, Massachusetts Family Institute,
Medina County Christian Coalition, Memory Of Victims
Everywhere, Michigan Decency Action Council, Michigan Family
Forum, Minnesota Association of Christian Schools, Minnesota
Christian Coalition, Minnesota Family Council, Mississippi
Family Council, Missouri Eagle Forum, MKL Associates,
National Alliance Against Christian Discrimination, National
Association of Christian Educators, National Association of
Korean Americans, National Assoc. of Muslim American Women,
National Center for Constitutional Studies, National Center
for Home Education, National Coalition for the Protection of
Children and Families, National District Attorneys
Association, National Federation of Republican Assemblies,
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, National Law
Enforcement Council, National Legal and Policy Center,
National Legal Foundation, National Liberty Journal, National
Organization for Women--Dulles Area, National Rifle
Association, National Sheriffs' Association, National Tax
Limitation Committee.
National Taxpayers Union, National Troopers Coalition,
Neighborhood Research/Mountaintop Media, Nevada Eagle Forum,
Nevada Republican Assembly, New Hampshire Right to Life, New
Jersey Christian Coalition, New Jersey Family Policy Council,
New York Eagle Forum, North Carolina Christian School
Association, North Carolina Conservatives United, Northern
Virginia Republican Action Committee, Northwest Legal
Foundation, Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs, Oklahoma
Family Policy Council, Old Dominion Association of Church
Schools, Open Door Baptist Church, Operation Rescue,
Operation Save America, Organized Victims of Violent Crime,
Orthodox Union, Parents in Control, Parents Requesting Open
Vaccine Education, Parents Rights Coalition of Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania Family Institute.
Pennsylvania Landowners Association, Pennsylvania
Republican Assembly, People Advancing Christian Education,
Personal Request, Project 21, Pro-Life Action League, Pro-
Life America, Pro-Life Ohio, Property Rights Congress,
Providence Foundation, Religious Freedom Coalition,
Republican Liberty Caucus, Republican National Coalition for
Life, Republican National Hispanic Assembly (Dallas County),
Republican Platform Committee, Republicans Against
Pornography, Right To Life of Cincinnati, Save America's
Youth, Second Amendment Sisters, Small Business Survival
Committee, South Dakota Family Policy Council, South Dakota
Shooting Sports Association, Southern Baptist Convention,
Sovereignty International, Speaking the Truth in Love
Ministries, St. John County Private Property Rights Group.
Taxpaying Adults, Teen-Aid, Inc., Tennessee Association of
Christian Schools, Tennessee Eagle Forum, Tennessee
Republican Assembly, Texas Eagle Forum, Texas Home School
Coalition, Texas Journal, Texas Public Policy Foundation, The
Alliance for Traditional Marriage and Values, The American
Family Policy Institute, The American Pistol and Rifle
Association of Vermont, The Armstrong Foundation, The Center
for Arizona Policy, The Center for Equal Opportunity, The
Center for Security Policy, The Christian Civic League of
Maine, The Constitutional Coalition, ``The Don Kroah Show''
(WAVA Radio), The Family Council, The Family Foundation, The
Family Foundation (Kentucky), The Family Institute of
Connecticut, The Federalist.
The Greenfield, Tennessee Movement To Impeach Federal Judge
John T. Nixon, The National Center for Public Policy
Research, The Niobrara Institute, The Patrick Henry Center
for Individual Liberty, The Strategic Policies Institute,
Toward Tradition, Tradition Family, Property, Inc.,
Traditional Values Coalition, U.S. Family Network, United
Seniors Association, United Seniors Association of Lee
County, United States Justice Foundation, U.S. Business and
Industry Council, Utah Eagle Forum, Utah Republican Assembly,
Victims and Friends United, Watchdogs Against Government
Abuse, We the People Congress, We the People Foundation, Weld
County Republicans, Well of Living Water, West Virginians
Against Government Waste, Whatcom County Republican Party,
Wisconsin Information Network, Wisconsin State Sovereignty
Coalition, Young America's Foundation, Young Americans for
Freedom.

Mr. CORZINE. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of
John Ashcroft to be Attorney General.
I have given a great deal of thought to this nomination and have
considered it very seriously. As a new Senator, I did not serve with
Senator Ashcroft, so I do not know him personally. However, I
personally attended the nomination hearings and listened carefully to
the testimony. I also reviewed many of the statements prepared by
supporters and opponents of the nomination, and heard from a large
number of my constituents in New Jersey.
After considering all the facts, I concluded that Senator Ashcroft,
while in many ways a very fine and distinguished public servant, simply
is not the right person for the job. Let me take a few moments to
explain my thinking.
In general, I believe that a President's choice for a Cabinet
position deserves deference. However, the position of Attorney General
deserves special scrutiny. As head of the Justice Department, the
Attorney General has the unique responsibility to interpret the law on
behalf of the executive branch, to investigate and prosecute suspected
criminals, to uphold our civil rights laws, to represent the government
before the Supreme Court through the Office of the Solicitor General,
and to manage immigration, among many other critically important
responsibilities. In addition, the Attorney General, while serving the
President, also must maintain a degree of independence from politics,
so that he or she can pursue wrongdoing within the government. The
Attorney General is the people's lawyer. For all these reasons, it is
imperative that the Attorney General be an individual not only of
unquestioned personal integrity, but someone who will be broadly
perceived as administering justice and enforcing the law fairly and
impartially for all people.
Unfortunately, after examining Senator Ashcroft's record, I have
serious

[[Page S990]]

concerns about whether as Attorney General he would be able to set
aside his long-standing and strongly held views and perform his duties
in a fully objective, fair and impartial manner.
I base this conclusion on several prior instances in which Senator
Ashcroft's view of the law and the facts seem to have been heavily
biased and colored by his ideology. Perhaps most importantly, in 1997,
he led the opposition to Judge White of the Missouri Supreme Court by
making a series of accusations that were inaccurate. For example, he
claimed that Judge White opposed the death penalty and believed that
``it apparently is unimportant . . . how clear the evidence of guilt.''
This was very unfair, as Judge White voted to affirm death sentences in
the vast majority of cases that had come before him, and had
unequivocally assured the Judiciary Committee that he was prepared to
impose the death penalty. In fact, in the case that Senator Ashcroft
used to criticize Judge White, the Judge's decision was based not on
opposition to the death penalty, but on a reasoned analysis of serious
constitutional problems that he believed had prevented the defendant
from receiving a fair trial. This was a clear example of Senator
Ashcroft's ideology coloring his interpretation of the facts.

Senator Ashcroft's strong ideological approach also seemed to skew
his views in the case of Bill Lann Lee, a nominee to head the Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Senator Ashcroft said he
voted again Lee because of ``serious concerns about his willingness to
enforce'' a Supreme Court decision limiting preferences for minority
companies in awarding government contracts, and the Senator adopted a
highly restrictive interpretation of that decision, challenging Mr.
Lee's interpretations of the Court's instructions and guidance.
However, this challenge appears to have been based on Senator
Ashcroft's own ideological opposition to affirmative action, not the
law or the Court's direction.
In another case, when he served as attorney general of Missouri,
Senator Ashcroft sought to invalidate a State law that authorized
nurses to engage in various practices, including the dispensing of
contraceptives. Senator Ashcroft, a strong opponent of abortion, argued
that this was unconstitutional. Yet there was no constitutional
authority for this position, and it was rejected by the Missouri
Supreme Court on a unanimous vote. Again, Senator Ashcroft's strongly
held ideological views had skewed his views of the law and led to a
highly subjective and biased conclusion with little objective merit.
These are just a few of many examples in which Senator Ashcroft
demonstrated an inability to move beyond his own views and reach a
fair, objective and balanced conclusion about the merits of a legal
position. If history is any guide, his enforcement of the law will be
seriously biased by his ideological views. This, in my view,
disqualifies him for a position as Attorney General, for which
fairness, objectivity and balance are perhaps the most important
qualities. In a period in our nation's history in which we need to come
together after a divisive election, I believe it would be a mistake to
select an Attorney General whose tendency to view the law ideologically
could aggravate our nation's divisions.
For all these reasons, I oppose this nomination.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
following editorial that appeared last week in the Arkansas Democrat-
Gazette regarding the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be the
next Attorney General appear in the Congressional Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

[From the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, Jan. 23, 2001]

Ted Kennedy's America--The New McCarthyism

Is anybody surprised that the senator who made Bork a verb
is looking for ways to derail John Ashcroft's confirmation as
attorney general? And Ted Kennedy knows just how to do it:
Talk it to death. He says he may lead a filibuster against
the nominee. It'd be an historic first--and an historic low.
Ted Kennedy has a way of being first, and low. The first to
get to a party, the first to abandon a car submerged under
water with a young lady still in it, the first to leave the
scene of an accident. Some of us remember another of Mr.
Kennedy's firsts: His classic War of the Worlds performance
during the Senate's hearing on Robert Bork's nomination to
the Supreme Court. In the 1930s Orson Welles reported an
invasion from Mars; Ted Kennedy imagines an invasion from the
neolithic Right.
Speaking in the well of the Senate, he envisioned Robert
Bork's America as one where ``Women would be forced into
back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch
counters, rogue police would break down citizens' doors in
midnight raids.'' It all made 1984 look kind of warm and
homey.
The intensity of the fight over Robert Bork's confirmation,
and the acrimony it sparked, didn't come without warning. It
was billed in advance as a battle of virgin ideologies--the
far, far left versus the far, far right, each side too pure
to give quarter to the other. It hardly surprised that ultra-
liberal Ted Kennedy would come out swinging against ultra-
conservative Robert Bork. What surprised--and appalled--was
the senator's neo-McCarthyisms.
In Ted Kennedy's America, you no longer ruin people's
character by calling them Communists. You call them racists.
Or just imply it. Robert Bork was morphed from a respected,
if very conservative, judge to a kind of American Nazi. Ted
Kennedy and hysterical company had no more evidence of Judge
Bork's racism than Joe McCarthy had the goods on George
Marshall. But that's the strategy of the witch-hunter: Indict
first, then the other guy has to prove he's not guilty--that
he's stopped beating his wife. It's called shifting the
burden of proof.
Ted Kennedy isn't waving a list of Communists in the State
Department, la Machine Gunner Joe, but a list of racists in
the next Cabinet. At the top is one John Ashcroft, former
attorney general, governor, and United States senator from
Missouri. And seg, if you can believe Ted Kennedy.
During last week's hearing, Senator Kennedy accused John
Ashcroft of fighting desegregation and voter registration.
Even for the U.S. Senate, the message wasn't subtle: John
Ashcroft's America would also be one of segregated lunch
counters. This is the same John Ashcroft who appointed more
African American judges than any other governor in Missouri.
The same John Ashcroft who signed the Martin Luther King
holiday into law. The same John Ashcroft who appointed the
first black judge to that state's court of appeals. And the
same John Ashcroft who signed the first Missouri hate-crimes
law as governor, and then voted for 26 out of 28 African
American judicial nominees as a U.S. Senator.
John Ashcroft seems to have failed at being a racist as
completely as Ted Kennedy has at being a civil leader of the
opposition. To quote a former Democratic senator, Bob Kerry:
``I think John Ashcroft is colorblind. That's one of the good
things that comes from his religious belief.'' But being
colorblind is the worst things you can be in Ted Kennedy's
America. If you dare embrace Martin Luther King's dream--that
one day all Americans will be judged not by the color of
their skin but by the content of their character--you're a
racist.
John Ashcroft learned this the hard way after he opposed
His Honor Ronnie White's appointment to the federal bench in
1999. He made the mistake of judging the nominee's record
without considering the color of his skin. He felt Judge
White had dissented from one too many death sentences. It was
a clash of philosophy, not a racial preference.
But in Ted Kennedy's America, race is a philosophy. His is
a country where Colin Powell is tarred as an Uncle Tom, and
Bill Clinton is hailed as Our First Black President. ``In
my view,'' Ted Kennedy declared, ``what happened to you is
the ugliest thing that's happened to any nominee in all my
years in the United States Senate.'' He wasn't addressing
Robert Bork, but Ronnie White.
There are times when the irony is so thick in Washington,
it becomes farce. Please note that Ted Kennedy voted against
Clarence Thomas, a conservative who still managed to become a
justice of Supreme Court of the United States. Nobody
insinuated that Senator Kennedy based his vote on Clarence
Thomas' race, which happens to be African American. He voted
against Justice Thomas because he opposed the conservative
jurist's philosophy, which he had every right to do. But he
won't recognize the same good faith in John Ashcroft.
For all the talk of the New Civility in Washington, we're
back to the old incivilities. The politics of personal
destruction? We have sunk even lower--to the politics of
national division. It wouldn't be the first time: Joe
McCarthy, like Ted Kennedy, was an aimless demagogue who
drank a lot.
What was disturbing was not the man but the -ism. It
allowed Joe McCarthy to be seen as the representative of the
American way, rather than a freakish exception. The junior
senator for Wisconsin was a political accident who never had
the sense of purpose to be really dangerous. In the end, the
clumsy oaf sabotaged the Right, not the Left. He made anti-
communism, not communism, suspect.
Now the McCarthyites of the Left was poised to do the same
dubious service for their political persuasion. The more
hysterical they sound, and the more outlandish their
accusations, the more credibility they will lose. John
Ashcroft's case is not the exception, but part of the trend.
Remember the campaign ads that tried to associate George W.
Bush with the lynching of James Byrd? The Democratic Party
has found its Red Scare. Or white scare.

[[Page S991]]

The party of Abraham Lincoln was to be re-cast as the party
of George Wallace and Orval Faubus (who happened to be
Democrats, but never mind). And Ted Kenndy now emerges as the
new Joe McCarthy, sniffing out any opportunity to paint a
political opponent as a racist. His victims, like John
Ashcroft, are left to prove that they aren't.
Where are the Margaret Chase Smiths and Dwight Eisenhowers
of the Democratic Party? The kind of people who will put
country above party, and distance themselves from the
demagogues? Don't look for any before 2002.
The Democrats are on the verge of taking back Congress--if
they can just scare enough people. Joe McCarthy would
understand.

Mrs. CARNAHAN. Mr. President, encircling the Great Seal of the State
of Missouri are the words ``United We Stand; Divided We Fall.'' It is a
motto that has guided our people well over the last 180 years.
In that same spirit, President Bush, at the onset of this new
century, has declared that he wants to be ``uniter not a divider.''
I am deeply encouraged, for I want to join with him and the Congress
to reach across the chasm of our political differences to do some hard
work for the American people.
Within the Senate, we have already reached out in a spirit of bi-
partisanship in structuring our committees. So far I have had the
opportunity to vote in favor of all of the President's Cabinet
nominees.
This was the beginning of a conciliatory course--a fragile alliance--
but, nonetheless, one that I believe must mark any real progress in the
107th Congress.
But I do not believe that the nomination of John Ashcroft furthers
the conciliatory tone that President Bush has set.
Senator Ashcroft has a long record of public service--a record that I
brought to the attention of the Judiciary Committee when I introduced
him. But in the end, I must determine if that record makes him suitable
to be the United States Attorney General.
Had Senator Ashcroft been nominated for any other Cabinet post, I
could have easily supported him. His credentials or faith are not in
dispute here, nor should they ever be. Rather, it is the conflict that
his words and deeds have generated throughout his public career.
Given the sweeping discretionary power of this position, I do not
believe that the office of Attorney General of the United States is the
right job for Senator Ashcroft.
When asked by my colleagues about this nomination, I urged them to
ignore their personal relationships and political considerations.
Instead, I called on them to vote their conscience. I must do the same.
Regrettably, I am unable to provide my consent for this nomination.
I am compelled by principles and beliefs I shared with my husband for
over forty years in public life, including the belief that we should do
all in our power to bring people together rather than drive them apart.
The call of conscience must supersede all others. It is the only
reliable anchor in the tempestuous sea of public life.
In casting this vote, I do so knowing that John Ashcroft will likely
be confirmed. I wish him every success. I hope he will take these votes
of dissent as they are intended: not as acts of spite or recrimination,
but as pleas for healing and harmony.
While I must withhold my vote on his confirmation, I pledge my
support on all matters that he and the President pursue in the interest
of a more just and peaceful nation.
Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the confirmation
of my friend and former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft, to be
Attorney General of the United States. As a man of the highest
integrity, experience, and ability, Senator Ashcroft is uniquely
qualified to serve as our nation's premier law enforcement officer and
the administrator of one of the federal government's largest agencies.
Senator Ashcroft's qualifications for the position of Attorney
General have been well documented on the floor and I only need mention
them in passing: law professor, State auditor, two-term Attorney
General, two-term Governor, and United States Senator from the State of
Missouri. Such a record of public service spanning such a period of
years demonstrates the great trust and admiration the people of
Missouri have placed in Senator Ashcroft over nearly 30 years.
What has impressed me about Senator John Ashcroft's record is not
only the length of public service, but the breadth of this experience
as well. There is no doubt that the ideal candidate for the position of
attorney general is someone who has a good grasp of the law and a true
dedication to enforce that law. However, the job entails a great deal
more than that. In fact, the attorney general needs to be a good
manager to oversee the 125,000 employees of the Department of Justice
in departments as diverse as the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. Senator Ashcroft's sixteen years as an executive in Missouri,
first as State attorney general and then as Governor, have made him
uniquely qualified to manage one of the largest federal agencies.
Moreover, his service with us in the United States Senate and his
involvement on the Senate Judiciary Committee have prepared him to work
closely with Congress in enforcement and development of Federal law.
In addition to Senator Ashcroft's remarkable credentials to serve as
United States Attorney General for all Americans, I would like to
remark on his particular interest and experience in the crime issues
facing rural communities. As many of my colleagues know, in the past
several years rural America has witnessed an explosion in illegal
methamphetamine use, especially among our nation's youth. Nationwide,
meth use increased 60% between 1992 and 1999 among America's high
school seniors. Unfortunately, the story is much bleaker in our rural
communities. In my own State of Wyoming, methamphetamine investigations
increased 600% between 1992 and 1998. Like all illegal drug abuse, meth
abuse tears at the very fabric of society by destroying families,
increasing violent crime, and dashing the dreams and promise of all too
many of our nation's youth.
While the battle against meth use and trafficking is primarily a
State responsibility, there is a role for the federal government by
supplying resources for law enforcement training, meth lab cleanup, and
education and prevention programs to help parents and teachers teach
children the dangers of meth. Senator Ashcroft was a true leader in
recognizing and furthering a limited, focused role for the Federal
Government in the battle against methamphetamine use and trafficking.
In 1999, Senator Ashcroft introduced legislation to combat this
problem. While I knew that Missouri had faced many of the same problems
faced in Wyoming, I was truly impressed with Senator Ashcroft's
understanding of the meth problem and willingness to listen to the
problems facing law enforcement in other states. Before introducing his
legislation, Senator Ashcroft and his staff made a particular effort to
understand the problems facing law enforcement personnel in Wyoming and
incorporated our suggestions in Senator Ashcroft's legislation to help
address these problems. I have to say that Senator Ashcroft's deep
understanding of the greatest crime issue facing our State of Wyoming
and his experience as a problem solver both as Governor of Missouri and
United States Senator give me great encouragement that he will work
with the Congress to address the needs of all states, not just those
with large urban areas.
I must say that Senator Ashcroft's understanding and appreciation for
the issues involved in the area of rural crime stands in stark contrast
with my experience with the previous Administration. Law enforcement
officials in my State have all too often been given the run around by
the Department of Justice and the Office of National Drug Control
Policy when they have attempted to pursue additional funding programs
or when they have attempted to include additional Wyoming counties to
the list of High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas. In fact, in one
conversation, an employee at the ONDCP told a top law enforcement
officer in Wyoming that they didn't have anyone at the department that
could approve new HIDTAs! I found that somewhat astonishing given that
is one of the very purposes of the office of the Drug Czar. Given his
track record in the State of Missouri and in the United States Senate,
I have every confidence

[[Page S992]]

that a Justice Department headed by John Ashcroft will pursue a
coordinated approach with the Office of National Drug Control Policy
and other agencies to help eliminate the red tape and ensure that our
law enforcement personnel in rural states are receiving the resources
they need to keep our communities safe and drug free.

We have heard a great deal of acrimony from some of the far-left
interest groups over the nomination of Senator Ashcroft. Evidently
these groups are intent in destroying Senator Ashcroft's reputation
even if they are unsuccessful in derailing his confirmation. The
attacks by these organizations are entirely unfounded and seem more
designed to raise funds for the particular interest groups than to find
the truth about our former colleague.
I must say that one of the charges that has been most disturbing to
me is the insinuation that Senator Ashcroft will not faithfully enforce
the laws of the United States because he is a devoted Christian. Not
only are such charges entirely unfounded, but they smack of a religious
bigotry of the most dangerous Kind. Such bigotry is nothing new, but is
should be condemned in any age in which it raises its ugly head. One no
less than George Washington warned against the efforts in his own day
to banish religion from the public square. In his farewell address of
September 29, 1796, President Washington remarked:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who
should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human
happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and
citizens.

We should pay heed to the words of our first president and disavow
any effort to banish Senator Ashcroft, or any other public servant,
from public life because of his or her religious beliefs.
The founders were well aware of the dangers inherent in applying
religious tests to the holding of public office. That is why they
included a specific prohibition to any such practice in Article six of
the Constitution where they said ``no religious Test shall ever be
required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the
United States''. Rather than ask that Senators apply an explicit test
such as that prohibited in Article six, the far-left special interest
groups that oppose Senator Ashcroft's nomination have turned instead to
rumor and innuendo to imply that anyone who has strong religious
beliefs such as those held by Senator Ashcroft is incapable of
enforcing federal laws with which he might not be in total agreement.
Nor surprisingly, these groups have not brought forth any specific
examples where Senator Ashcroft failed to enforce the laws when he
served as attorney general or governor of the State of Missouri.
Instead, all the evidence seems to point to the contrary. Not only did
the people of Missouri continue to elect John Ashcroft to positions of
public trust, but his fellow State attorneys general and his fellow
governors elected him in turn president of their respective
organizations. Keep in mind that these organizations are bi-partisan
and represent members from a wide spectrum of political and
philosophical views. The fact that the State attorneys general and the
State governors would choose John Ashcroft to head their organizations
is evidence of the trust and respect that his colleagues had for his
integrity, his ability, and his willingness to fairly and faithfully
enforce the laws as he found them. This record stands in stark contrast
to the revisionist history that has been spread in the media by groups
opposed to Senator Ashcroft's nomination.
I have known Senator Ashcroft both as a colleague and a friend. He is
a thoughtful and honorable public servant who has served the people of
Missouri and the United States with distinction for nearly thirty
years. He is dedicated to consistently and fairly upholding and
enforcing the Constitution and laws of the United States. I have every
confidence that Senator Ashcroft will bring dignity and integrity to
the office of the Attorney General as he has to the numerous positions
of public trust he has filled in the past. I urge my colleagues to join
my voting to confirm Senator Ashcroft as Attorney General.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, if there is one thing I have learned
about working in Washington is that we must learn to respect and
recognize our differences. I certainly expect a new President to select
Cabinet nominees who share his basic beliefs and ideology. I have thus
far voted to confirm every nominee that President Bush has submitted to
the Senate since he took office--even those who hold positions on
important issues that are different from my own. In fact, it is fair to
say that I have been generally pleased with the talented and dedicated
public servants President Bush has chosen to lead this Administration.
While the President retains the Constitutional authority to appoint
his Cabinet, I also take very seriously my Constitutional
responsibility as a Senator to provide advice and consent on his
appointments. Our role in the confirmation process isn't to afix a
rubber stamp on presumptive nominees, especially for a position as
important as this. Unlike other Cabinet posts, Mr. President, the
Attorney General is responsible for representing and defending the
rights and constitutional freedoms of every American. I believe this
position requires someone who understands and appreciates that not
every American is born with equal access to the opportunities and
blessings that make our nation great.
In my opinion, to fulfill the duties with which the Attorney General
is entrusted, the nominee must be pro-active in his pursuit against
discrimination and injustice as the law demands. Successfully defending
the rights of every citizen ultimately depends upon the wide discretion
an Attorney General exercises to initiate investigations, establish
Task Forces and prosecute wrongdoers.
After reading Senator Ashcroft's response to the questions I
submitted together with his testimony before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, I am reasonably confident he is prepared to react to crime
and injustice when it occurs. I am not convinced, however, that he is
prepared to do any more when called upon to enforce a law with which he
passionately disagrees. His convictions are deeply held and he has
fought stubbornly for them in the past. I truly doubt that he can set
them aside so easily now.
I must tell you that I am deeply moved by the constitutional role I
am called upon to perform today. Passing judgement on a former
colleague is extremely difficult and not a part of our normal
responsibilities. I respect Senator Ashcroft as a former colleague and
someone I know to be deeply committed to his religious teachings and
the causes he champions. Also, I would like to add that I would gladly
support his confirmation to any other Cabinet post.
In the end, though, I have concluded it is his deeply held beliefs
over issues that fall directly under the jurisdiction of the Justice
Department that will impede his ability to do this job--to enforce the
law without bias or favor toward anyone; to vigorously fight
discrimination and its painful legacy and to defend the constitutional
rights he has fought so zealously to overturn in the past. Ironically,
his passionate advocacy that inspires respect in me and others is what,
in my opinion, makes Senator Ashcroft the wrong man for this job.
For the benefit of my constituents who hold passionate views on both
sides of this issue and for my colleagues listening today, I would like
to take a few moments to highlight some of the factors I considered
when making my decision.
I must confess, Mr. President, when I reviewed the history of Senator
Ashcroft's involvement in an effort to desegregate public schools in
St. Louis, I was surprised and troubled by what I read. According to
testimony presented at his confirmation hearing, Senator Ashcroft, in
his capacity as Attorney General of Missouri, engaged in an
extraordinary legal campaign that spanned several years to block
implementation of a voluntary school integration plan in St. Louis.
During the course of this litigation, Senator Ashcroft initiated
numerous challenges and appeals that were firmly and repeatedly
rejected by the courts. Instead of accepting the decisions rendered, he
pursued a course of action that drew judicial criticism and, in one
instance, a threat of contempt for failure to comply with a court
order.

[[Page S993]]

I believe it is one thing to vigorously assert your legal rights in a
court of law. Its something else, however, for a state's top law
enforcement official to display such a cavalier attitude toward the
judicial branch of government. I know the issue of racial integration
in public education can ignite powerful emotions. I was a young
elementary school student when Helena public schools in Arkansas were
integrated. This was not an easy transition at the time and it
certainly left a powerful and positive impression on me that I shall
never forget. So I know that honest people can disagree passionately
about this issue and I don't question the personal views Senator
Ashcroft may have on this matter generally. I do, however, question the
judgement he exercised as a public official in this case.
As a Senator from a state that experiences difficulty in recruiting
physicians and other qualified medical professionals to work in rural
communities, I was also concerned by actions Senator Ashcroft took as
Attorney General to restrict access to medical care in under served
communities. According to the record, Senator Ashcroft issued an
opinion as Attorney General of Missouri and later intervened in a court
case to prohibit qualified nurses with advanced training from providing
necessary and routine gynecological services to underprivileged female
patients at clinics in Missouri. The medical services at issue included
conducting breast and pelvic examinations, performing PAP smears and
providing information about effective contraceptive practices.
Furthermore, the health clinics involved were located in counties in
which there was not a single physician who would accept Medicaid
eligible patients for pre-natal care or childbirth.
Senator Ashcroft put the weight of his office behind an effort to
declare the gynecological services at issue in this case outside the
scope of practice for professional nurses in Missouri. Thankfully, for
the female patients who depend on qualified medical professionals who
aren't physicians to deliver necessary care, that claim was rejected in
a unanimous ruling by the Missouri Supreme Court.
I am concerned about access to care because, after growing up in East
Arkansas, I am well aware of the obstacles women face in obtaining the
specialized medical care they need. While I respect the right of each
state to establish their own standards of medical practice, I think
that by going to court against the nurses of his state, Senator
Ashcroft displayed a relevant degree of insensitivity on a critical
issue to the persons most affected in this case.
I must tell you I'm still deeply disappointed by the way this body
treated Judge Ronnie White. In my opinion, Judge White is a decent,
honorable man who deserved much better. Even though I believe Senator
Ashcroft is sincere in his belief that Judge White should not sit on
the federal bench, I seriously question the manner in which he acted to
defeat his nomination. Now that we have all had time to review a more
complete and balanced report of Judge White's record, I am confident
the Senate would not make the same mistake again. In fact, Senator
Ashcroft has received the same kind of deference and fair treatment
that I wish he had shown Judge White.
I was taught at an early age that public service is a high calling
and a noble profession. In accordance with that belief, it is essential
that we in the Senate discharge our responsibility to consider
nominations in a manner that encourages the most talented and qualified
individuals to seek employment in the public sector. I am confident
that the Senate fell short of that standard in this case.
Taken together--the battle waged over desegregation in St. Louis, the
attempts to stop nurses from providing basic medical services to
underserved patients and the decision to defeat the nomination of a
qualified nominee who deserved better--these instances and other facts
in the record lead me to conclude that Senator Ashcroft will further
divide our country on these sensitive issues.
I encourage the President to consider another nominee who will help
him heal these wounds, not open them anew. In the alternative, I hope
our new President will work to heal the wounds inflicted by this
nomination on the Senate, the Presidency and our nation so that we can
move forward to address the problems of all Americans in a bipartisan
way.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the nomination of
John Ashcroft to be the U.S. Attorney General.
Senator Ashcroft has superb legal qualifications. He was educated at
Yale and the prestigious University of Chicago law school. While in the
U.S. Senate, he served on the Judiciary Committee and chaired its
Subcommittee on the Constitution.
Senator Ashcroft is also the most experienced nominee for U.S.
Attorney General in American history. He served as Missouri's attorney
general, its governor, and, of course, one of its U.S. Senators. Since
the founding of the nation, none of the previous 66 Attorneys General
had his level of experience.
Opponents have offered a number of reasons for their opposition. I
would like to take this opportunity to respond.
First, what should the standard for confirmation be? The general rule
for confirmation of Justice Department nominees was well-stated by
Senator Leahy in connection with President Clinton's nomination of
Walter Dellinger to be head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the
Department of Justice:

The Senate has a responsibility to advise and consent on
Department of Justice and other executive branch nominations.
And we must always take our advice and consent
responsibilities seriously because they are among the most
sacred. But I think most Senators will agree that the
standard we apply in the case of executive branch
appointments is not as stringent as that for judicial
nominees. The President should get to pick his own team.
Unless the nominee is incompetent or some other major ethical
or investigative problem arises in the course of our carrying
out our duties, then the President gets the benefit of the
doubt. There is no doubt about this nominee's qualifications
or integrity. This is not a lifetime appointment to the
judicial branch of government. President Clinton should be
given latitude in naming executive branch appointees, people
to whom he will turn for advice. I should also note that his
nomination went through the Judiciary Committee--by no means
a rubberstamp--unanimously.
The recent debate over Walter Dellinger is another instance
of people putting politics over substance. Yes, he has
advised and spoken out about high-profile constitutional
issues of the day. I would hope that an accomplished legal
scholar would not shrink away from public positions on
controversial issues, as it appears his opponents would
prefer. One can question Professor Dellinger's positions and
beliefs, but not his competence and legal abilities.

This is the standard that is traditionally applied and it is the
proper standard. While acknowledging that presidents are ordinarily
entitled to deference in the selections for their cabinet, in the
nomination of John Ashcroft critics argue that they are justified in
applying a tougher standard for confirmation because of the standard
that Senator Ashcroft allegedly used in evaluating Bill Lann Lee to
head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. In
considering Bill Lann Lee, Senator Ashcroft had said 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.''
Some Democrats say that because John Ashcroft applied this
``standard'' to Bill Lann Lee, they are justified in applying the same
standard to John Ashcroft. First, this is not a standard, but a
conclusion about Lee based upon his record and testimony. Second, what
Senator Ashcroft did on the Lee nomination was justified. Senator
Ashcroft's concerns with Bill Lann Lee were based on Lee's long record
of activism as a public interest lawyer. Republicans on the Judiciary
Committee opposed Lee's nomination because they were justly concerned
about his willingness to enforce the law as stated in Justice
O'Connor's opinion for the Supreme Court in Adarand. In Adarand, the
Supreme Court held that all governmental racial classifications were
subject to strict scrutiny--that is, they must be narrowly tailored to
serve a compelling government interest. Mr. Lee repeatedly stated the
standard for

[[Page S994]]

racial preferences in less strict terms. He also found that only one of
the 150 current federal programs involving racial classifications would
be invalid under Adarand.
Senator Ashcroft explained why he opposed Bill Lann Lee's
nomination--he was concerned that Mr. Lee would not enforce the law.
Senator Ashcroft testified: ``I joined with eight other Republicans on
the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposing Bill Lee's nomination to be
assistant attorney general because I had serious concerns about his
willingness to enforce the Adarand decision . . . [Mr. Lee] was an
excellent litigant, but I had concerns that he viewed the Adarand
decision as an obstacle rather than as a way in which the law was
defined. Adarand held that government programs that establish racial
preferences based on race are subject to strict scrutiny, that is the
highest level of scrutiny under the Supreme Court's equal protection
clause. Adarand was a landmark decision, it was substantial, it was
important. Mr. Lee did not indicate a clear willingness to enforce the
law based on that decision.''
Senator Ashcroft's concerns about Bill Lann Lee proved to be well-
founded. For example, 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.'' The Division then turned around and filed a
similar suit in Texas defending the constitutionality of contracting
preferences on the basis of race and sex. Mr. Lee also continued to
unlawfully coerce state and local governments to adopt race and sex
preferences by threatening costly lawsuits based on dubious employment
statistics.
Moreover, under Mr. Lee, the Civil Rights Division 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 continued despite the fact that
Proposition 209 has repeatedly been upheld by federal courts.
It is also important to note that Bill Lann Lee had never held an
executive position--or any position--in the government, whereas Senator
Ashcroft served as attorney general of Missouri for eight years and as
governor for eight years. He had distinguished tenures in both offices.
In fact, he served as President of the National Association of
Attorneys General and as Chairman of the National Governors Association
and Chairman of the Education Commission of the States.
In sum, Senator Ashcroft had serious reasons for concern with the Lee
nomination, and his concern was borne out. In contrast, Senator
Ashcroft has not waffled, redefined, or otherwise given reason to
believe that he would not apply the law as it is. While Lee continued
to aggressively litigate, John Ashcroft has shown no sign that he will
continue to legislate. He did not do so as Missouri Attorney General,
and he would not do so as U.S. Attorney General. In fact, John Ashcroft
has repeatedly stated that he will enforce the law--yet this
reassurance has failed to satisfy his critics. It's a Catch-22. He has,
like every nominee, said he will uphold the law; and no one has ever
questioned his integrity. But when John Ashcroft pledges to uphold the
law, critics say that this is a ``new'' John Ashcroft, that he has
flipped and is not credible. What they are saying is that he cannot
satisfy them whatever he says. John Ashcroft knows the difference
between being a legislator and being an executive. He is a man of
integrity. He should be taken at his word. He cannot prove a negative--
that he won't fail to do his job. To hold him to that standard is to
ask of him the impossible. Senators have the right to vote on any
grounds they like; but they should not shroud their vote in a sham
standard.
An example of setting up an impossible standard is the view by some
that, because Senator Ashcroft opposes abortion he cannot by definition
enforce laws such as the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances law--the
federal criminal statute that punishes those who commit acts of
criminal intimidation or violence at abortion clinics. There is no
logic to this position. Senator Ashcroft's opposition to abortion does
not mean that he supports violations of the law prohibiting violence at
clinics. Indeed, Senator Ashcroft supports the freedom of access to
clinic entrances law and stated in his written answers that he ``will
fully enforce FACE.'' This reinforces the view that he has previously
expressed. For example, long before he had any idea he would ever be
nominated for attorney general, Senator Ashcroft wrote that, regardless
of his personal views on abortion, people should be able to enter
abortion clinics safely: ``I believe people should be able to enter
legal abortion clinics safely. I oppose unlawfully barricading or
otherwise curtailing access to legal abortion clinics. I condemn
violence regarding this issue by individuals either in favor of or
against abortion.'' Quoted from a May 15, 1996 letter to George
Sorenson of St. Clair Shores, MI.
Senator Ashcroft opposes criminal violence at abortion clinics and
believes people who commit these acts of violence and intimidation
should be punished. As Attorney General he'll do just that. It is
irrational for critics to vote against him in the belief that merely
because he opposes abortion the won't enforce the freedom of access to
clinic entrances law.
While he cannot prove a negative, he can point to past situations
that belie the assertion that he won't properly apply the law. As
Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft did not let his personal
opinion on abortion cloud his legal analysis. For example, in Attorney
General Opinion No. 5, issued on October 22, 1982, 1981 WL 154492, Mo.
A.G., John Ashcroft opined that the Missouri Division of Health should
not release to the public information from reports it maintains on the
number of abortions performed by particular hospitals. He stated that
the legislature made clear its intent that such reports ``shall be
confidential and shall be used only for statistical purposes'' and even
made failure to maintain confidentiality a misdemeanor. John Ashcroft
opined that, for these reasons, and to protect the patient-physician
privilege as recognized by Missouri law, access to the health data
maintained by the Division was subject to review only by local, state
or national public health officers.
Additionally, in Attorney General Opinion No. 127, issued on
September 23, 1980, 1980 WL 115450 Mo. A.G., John Ashcroft was asked to
opine on whether a death certificate was required for all abortions,
regardless of the age of the fetus. Despite his personal view that life
begins at conception, he stated that Missouri statutes did not require
any type of certificate if the fetus was 20 weeks or less. After 20
weeks Missouri statutes specifically require a ``certificate of
stillbirth'' regardless of whether death was by natural causes such as
a miscarriage or an intentional act such as an abortion.
It is also worth noting that Senator Ashcroft 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.
Finally, it is important to note that Senator Ashcroft has a strong
record on women's issues, contrary to what some have charged. As
governor, he signed a rape shield law that made inadmissible evidence
of the victim's past sexual conduct. He also signed a law recognizing
battered woman's syndrome as a defense in criminal cases. As Missouri
attorney general, he took a broad view on allowing domestic violence
funds to be used by non-profits to establish a network of ``safe
homes.'' As Senator, John Ashcroft co-sponsored the Violence Against
Women Act.
Third, opponents express concern that Senator Ashcroft does not favor
stricter gun control and previously opposed some measures that are now
law. As a result, they conclude he will not enforce the gun control
laws. Some people may be so pinched in their opinions that they could
not distinguish between these two circumstances. Not John Ashcroft.
As a former state attorney general and president of the National
Association of Attorneys General, Senator Ashcroft knows how important
it is to enforce gun laws vigorously. Unfortunately, the Clinton
Justice Department has failed to make gun prosecutions a priority.
Between 1992 and 1998, prosecutions of criminals who use a gun to
commit a felony dropped nearly 50 percent from 7,045 to 3,765. Senator

[[Page S995]]

Ashcroft was one of the leaders in the Senate in directing the Justice
Department to increase the prosecution of gun crimes. He sponsored
legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional federal
prosecutors and law enforcement officers to increase the federal
prosecution of criminals who use guns. Additionally, Senator Ashcroft
sponsored legislation to require a five-year mandatory minimum prison
sentence for federal gun crimes and for legislation to encourage
schools to expel students who bring guns to school.
Moreover, in the Senate, John Ashcroft had a strong record in
fighting gun crimes. Last Congress, for example, Senator Ashcroft
authored legislation to prohibit juveniles from possessing assault
weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. The Senate overwhelmingly
passed the Ashcroft legislation in May 1999.
Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation that prohibits any person
convicted of even misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing
a firearm, for legislation to extend the Brady Act to prohibit persons
who commit violent crimes as juveniles from possessing firearms, for
the ``Gun-Free Schools Zone Act'' that prohibits the possession of a
firearm in a school zone, and for legislation to require gun dealers to
offer child safety locks and other gun safety devices for sale. Senator
Ashcroft also voted for legislation to close the so-called ``gun show
loophole.'' This bill required mandatory instant background checks for
all firearm purchases at gun shows.
Senator Ashcroft will uphold the nation's laws on firearms.
Fourth, critics question Senator Ashcroft's record or civil rights.
They often begin by raising the issue of desegregation litigation in
Missouri. Senator Ashcroft did defend the state of Missouri as state
attorney general in a long-running school-desegregation case. Every
Missouri attorney general since 1980, including Jay Nixon, John
Ashcroft's Democratic successor, backed the state's (and Ashcroft's)
position. According to an article in National Review, the attorneys
general in Missouri,

fought the orders because they were unjust, saddling
innocent parties with exorbitant costs. They fought the
orders because they were unpopular, not only with their
victims, but with their beneficiaries. A leitmotif of the
desegregation was the persistent splintering of minority
groups from the ``class action'' litigants, whose one-size-
fits-all remedies ran roughshod over the aspirations of
parents for their children. . . . In Missouri, 400 other
public-school districts suffered cutbacks so that a handful
of attorneys for civil-rights groups and teachers unions
could run uncontrolled clinical trials on a generation of
urban school kids, Indeed, non-urban school officials were
among the most persistent and vociferous foes of the
desegregation orders.

The article continues: ``Twenty years of forced bussing, which
Ashcroft opposed, left the Kansas City school district slightly less
integrated than it was before. Twenty years of forced bussing, plus $3
billion, left Kansas City and St. Louis with schools that consistently
rate among the poorest in the nation in reading and math skills.'' To
oppose a particular court order is not, as some critics have said, to
``relentlessly oppose school desegregation.'' That characterization is
unfair, even slanderous.
Another point that critics often raise is the fact that Senator
Ashcroft spoke at Bob Jones University. The controversy over the Bob
Jones University speech has been put to rest. At his confirmation
hearings, Senator Ashcroft made it clear that he ``reject[s] any racial
intolerance or religious intolerance that has been associated with[,]
or is associated with[,]'' Bob Jones University. Senator Ashcroft
explained that ``[he] want[s] to make it very clear that [he] reject[s]
racial and religious intolerance.'' He said he does not endorse any
bigoted views by virtue of ``having made an appearance in any faith or
any congregation.'' He said, for example, that he has visited churches
which do not ``allow women in certain roles,'' and that he does not
endorse that view, either.
In the matter of the role faith plays in our public life, there
appears to be a double standard. Senator Lieberman made numerous
speeches connecting God to American government when he was running for
Vice President last year. In fact, during a campaign speech in a church
in Detroit, he said he hoped his candidacy ``will enable all people . .
. to talk about their faith and about their religion, and I hope it
will reinforce a belief that I feel as strongly as anything else--that
there must be a place for faith in American public life.'' [Newsweek 9/
11/00] I share in that hope. Sadly, critics of John Ashcroft, who
almost universally supported Senator Lieberman, apply a different
standard on this issue to John Ashcroft.
During his career, Senator Ashcroft has compiled an outstanding
record of protecting the rights of all people. As governor, Fortune
named him one of the top 10 education governors in the nation. John
Ashcroft was an inclusive governor, signing into law Missouri's first
hate-crimes statute and state holiday that recognizes Dr. Martin Luther
King's birthday. He nominated the first woman to the Missouri Supreme
Court.
John Ashcroft's work on behalf of minorities earned him a
commendation from the Mound City Association, an African-American Bar
Association of St. Louis, and a campaign endorsement from the Limelight
Newspaper, the largest African-American newspaper in St. Louis.
In the U.S. Senate, John Ashcroft convened the first and only Senate
hearing on racial profiling. He secured more funding to combat violence
against women, voted to prohibit those who have been convicted of
domestic violence from owning a gun, and supported the crime victims'
rights amendment and Violence Against Women Act.
John Ashcroft has been deeply committed to promoting equal access to
government positions during his tenure as both Attorney General and
Governor of Missouri. Witnesses testifying at the hearing made this
commitment clear.
Mr. Jerry Hunter, former labor secretary of Missouri, testified that,
``Like President-elect George W. Bush, Senator Ashcroft followed a
policy of affirmative access and inclusiveness during his service to
the state of Missouri as attorney general, his two terms as governor,
and his one term in the United States Senate. During the eight years
that Senator Ashcroft was attorney general for the state of Missouri,
he recruited and hired minority lawyers. During his tenure as governor,
he appointed blacks to numerous boards and commissions . . . [B]ut I
would say to you on a personal note, Senator Ashcroft went out of his
way to find African-Americans to consider for appointments.''
Mr. Hunter further elaborated that,

When Governor Ashcroft's term ended in January of 1993, he
had appointed more African-Americans to state court
judgeships than any previous governor in the history of the
state of Missouri. Governor Ashcroft was also bipartisan in
his appointment of state court judges. He appointed
Republicans, Democrats and independents. One of Governor
Ashcroft's black appointees in St. Louis was appointed,
notwithstanding the fact that he was not a Republican and
that he was on a panel with a well-known white Republican. Of
the nine panels of nominees for state court judgeships, which
included at least one African-American, Governor Ashcroft
appointed eight black judges from those panels.

Congressman J.C. Watts testified:

I've worked with [John Ashcroft] on legislation concerning
poor communities, under-served communities. I have always
found John Ashcroft to have nothing but the utmost respect
and dignity for one's skin color. I heard John say yesterday
in some of his testimony that his faith requires him to
respect one's skin color. And I think that's the way it
should be . . . [I]n my dealings with John, I have had
nothing but the utmost respect for him when it comes to his
dealings with people of different skin color.

Judge David Mason, who worked with Ashcroft in the Missouri Attorney
General's office stated,

As time went on, I begin to get a real feel for this man
and where his heart is. When the subject of Martin Luther
King Day came up, I was there. And I recall that he issued
the executive order to establish the first King Day, rather
than wait for the legislature to do it. Because, as you may
recall, some of you, when Congress passed the holiday, they
passed it at a time when the Missouri legislature may not
have been able to have the first holiday contemporaneously
with it. So he passed a King holiday by executive order. He
said, in doing so, he wanted his children to grow up in a
state that observed someone like Martin Luther King.

Bob Woodson of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise uses
faith-based organizations to help troubled young people turn their
lives around. Mr. Woodson testified:

Senator John Ashcroft is the only person who, from the time
he came into this body, reached out to us. He's on the board
of Teen

[[Page S996]]

Challenge. He's raised money for them. He sponsored a
charitable choice legislation that will stop the government
from trying to close them down because they don't have
trained professionals as drug counselors. We have an 80
percent success rate of these faith-based organizations with
a $60-a-day cost, when the conventional, therapeutically
secular program cost $600 a day with a 6 to 10 percent
success rate. Senator Ashcroft has gone with us. He has
fought with us. And this legislation would help us. As a
consequence, day before yesterday, 150 black and Hispanic
transformed drug addicts got on buses from all over this
nation and came here to support him. Fifty of them came from
Victory Temple throughout the state of Texas, spent two days
on a Greyhound bus at their own expense to come here to voice
strong support for Senator Ashcroft.

Kay James of the Heritage Foundation testified:

The system our founders designed, of course, is famous for
its many checks and balances from which no public official is
immune. Nevertheless, the charge is still made that these are
insufficient to deal with a man of religious conviction. As
such, a person cannot be trusted to faithfully execute the
laws, especially those which may conflict with his deeply
held belief. I reject such religious profiling. On this
matter, let me attempt to reassure John Ashcroft's
opponents by enlisting the very thing they profess to fear
most: his religious faith.

Fifth, opponents claim that Senator Ashcroft has a poor record on the
nominations of President Clinton's nominations to the federal bench.
This somehow justifies voting against Ashcroft under a standard of
``what's good for the goose is good for the gander.''
Apart from the intellectual contradiction in such a position, Senator
Ashcroft's record contradicts this assertion. He supported 218 out of
230 Clinton judicial nominees, or, put another way, Senator Ashcroft
supported more than 94 percent of President Clinton's nominees, many of
whom were women and minorities. This is hardly a record of obstruction.
Indeed, Senator Ashcroft supported 26 of the 27 African-American judges
nominated by President Clinton and considered by the Senate. All other
Republican senators also opposed the only one Ashcroft opposed.
That nominee was Ronnie White--nominated to the federal district
court bench. Senator Ashcroft, along with the majority of the U.S.
Senate, had grave concerns about White's record in Missouri death-
penalty cases. White wasn't just the state's leading dissenter in
death-penalty cases, he even went so far as to try (unsuccessfully) to
overturn the conviction of a man who confessed to brutally murdering
four people. White was the only dissenter in that case, which caused
his nomination to be opposed by numerous law-enforcement groups and
officers, including the National Sheriff's Association, the Missouri
Federation of Police Chiefs, the Mercer County Prosecuting Attorney's
office, and numerous individual Missouri sheriffs and police
departments.
Senator Ashcroft took very seriously his duty to evaluate Judge
White's record. He reluctantly concluded White had a propensity to work
against the imposition of the death penalty even when called for by
law. As Senator Ashcroft testified,

Judges at the federal level are appointed for life. They
frequently have power that literally would allow them to
overrule the entire Supreme Court of the state of Missouri.
If a person has been convicted in the state of Missouri, but
on habeas corpus files a petition with a U.S. district court,
it's within the power of that single U.S. district court
judge to set aside the judgment of the entire Supreme Court
of the State of Missouri. So that my seriousness with which I
addressed these issues is substantial. I did characterize
Judge White's record as being pro-criminal. I did not
derogate his background.

Judge White argued in dissent in the Johnson case, where the
defendant was convicted of killing three law enforcement officers and
the wife of a sheriff, that the defendant received ineffective
assistance of counsel. Congressman Hulshof, the prosecutor in that
case, rebutted that argument quite effectively. Congressman Hulshof
testified, ``The points I'd like to raise briefly about the quality of
James Johnson's representation is this: He hired counsel of his own
choosing. He picked from our area in mid-Missouri what we've referred
to as--as I referred to as a dream team.'' And the court later ruled
that the counsel was effective.

Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by
Johnson, testified,

Be assured that Senator Ashcroft had no other reason that I
know about to oppose Judge White except that I asked him to.
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 Johnson killed were not given a second chance.

Some Democrats claim that Ronnie White was treated shabbily. They say
the treatment was shabby because it was embarrassing for White to be
suffer defeat on the Senate floor and because of alleged misstatements
by Senator Ashcroft about White's record. In response to the first
point, it must be said that throughout the last Congress, Democrats
constantly stressed that they wanted their nominees brought to the
floor for a vote. In fact, on June 29, 1999, more than three months
before the nomination came to the floor, Senator Leahy took to the
floor to say that Ronnie White ``should be allowed a vote, up or
down.'' He continued: ``Senators can stand up and say they will vote
for or against him, but let this man have a vote.'' Well, this is what
can happen when a nominee is brought to the floor--the nomination can
be defeated. If Democrats are concerned that a nominee will be
embarrassed if the nominee loses, then Democrats must be careful when
they clamor for a vote. I personally expressed to Judge White my regret
that his nomination was considered by the full Senate in a way that
ended in defeat.
A second point: when Democrats complain that there were misstatements
about Ronnie White's record, why didn't they correct the record? Every
senator, of course, has the right to set the record straight if there
is an error. Further, on this matter there have been misstatements not
by Senator Ashcroft but about Senator Ashcroft's floor statement. I
want to make one point very clear: Senator Ashcroft did not accuse
Ronnie White of being pro-criminal, rather he said that ``Judge White's
opinions have been, and, if confirmed, his opinions on the Federal
bench will continue to be pro-criminal and activist, with a slant
toward criminals and defendants against prosecutors and the culture in
terms of maintaining order . . .'' This statement is in no way a smear
of Ronnie White. It is a reasonable conclusion after reviewing Ronnie
White's dissents in a number of cases, most notably the Johnson case in
which, as the lone dissenter, Ronnie White would have let a confessed
murderer go free for three reasons. First, Judge White's dissent
concluded that, as noted above, the defendant had ineffective
assistance of counsel--yet the case was so overwhelming that Clarence
Darrow could not have saved the defendant. Second, White's dissent
displayed a pro-criminal bent in stating that the defendant's
``previously law-abiding life'' could warrant reducing the sentence of
this quadruple murderer to life imprisonment. Third, White's dissent
demonstrated a willingness to disregard the law, specifically, as the
definition of legal insanity. White wrote: ``While Mr. Johnson may not,
as the jury found, have met the legal definition of insanity, whatever
drove Mr. Johnson to go from being a law-abiding citizen to being a
multiple killer was certainly something akin to madness.'' A judge must
enforce the law, not make new law by the seat of his pants.

As I stated above--and it merits repeating because Senator Ashcroft's
critics have distorted his record--Senator Ashcroft supported 218 out
of 230 Clinton judicial nominees. Put another way, Senator Ashcroft
supported more than 94 percent of President Clinton's nominees, many of
whom were women and minorities. Indeed, Senator Ashcroft supported 26
of the 27 African-American judges nominated by President Clinton and
considered by the Senate. This is hardly a record of obstruction.
Like many people who watched the recent confirmation hearings of John
Ashcroft for U.S. Attorney General, I too failed to recognize the man
as characterized by his opponents. I've known John Ashcroft for six
years in the Senate.
As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, Senator John Ashcroft is
a man who knows the law. He was educated at Yale and the prestigious
University of Chicago law school. While in the U.S.

[[Page S997]]

Senate, he served on the Senate Judiciary Committee and chaired its
Subcommittee on the Constitution. Furthermore, Senator Ashcroft is the
most experienced candidate for U.S. Attorney General in American
history. He served as Missouri's attorney general, its governor, and
one of its U.S. senators.
During his career, Senator Ashcroft has compiled an outstanding
record of protecting the rights of all people. He will continue to do
so as the United States Attorney General. I strongly support his
nomination and encourage all my colleagues to do so as well.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I have always believed that Presidents
are entitled to a degree of deference in their cabinet nominees. And
so, while this made it difficult I have nonetheless informed the
administration that I cannot support Senator John Ashcroft's nomination
to be attorney general.
Senator Ashcroft has been a dedicated public servant and I say that
even though we have not found common ground on the issues. The range of
issues we have disagreed on has been broad and they have centered on
some of the most important laws of our land. No person should be forced
to choose between their fundamental beliefs and values and enforcing
our Nation's laws. For those who cherish civil rights laws, the freedom
of choice and handgun control the stakes are simply too high to expect
a cabinet secretary to choose between passionately held beliefs and
enforcing not only the letter but the spirit of the law.
I also have specific concerns about New Jersey. It is not enough just
to be opposed to racial profiling. The scars this issue has left on my
state are too deep and require the strongest possible commitment if we
are ever to heal. Further, it will take a concerted effort to enforce a
range of civil rights laws from hate crimes to tolerance. It requires
the will of the Attorney General, the full force of that office.
I said some very positive things about John Ashcroft at the time he
was nominated. I continue to hope that it is possible to disagree and
to disagree strongly without demonizing. I also hope he will always
reflect on the concerns raised during the confirmation process.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to voice my
support for the nomination of John Ashcroft, of Missouri, to be U.S.
Attorney General.
I think it is important to focus on the standard for a Cabinet
nomination, which is fundamentally different from a judicial
appointment, which is a lifetime appointment, and focus on the latitude
which is customarily accorded the President of the United States in
making a selection on a Cabinet nominee.
I do support former Senator Ashcroft for attorney general. And I do
so, in substantial measure, because of the record he has compiled as an
elected official in Missouri and because of my personal knowledge of
him. He was twice elected attorney general of Missouri, he was twice
elected governor of Missouri, he was elected Senator of Missouri. And
Missouri is a moderate state, I think very much like my own state,
Pennsylvania: two big cities, a lot of farmland. The characteristics of
the electorate in Missouri, who have elected him five times to major
offices, I think, speaks well of Senator Ashcroft in rejecting the
notion that he is an extremist.
The John Ashcroft whom I have known for six years in the United
States Senate is not an extremist. He sat a couple of seats down from
me on the Judiciary Committee. Although we did not agree on many items,
I always felt he was exercising his honest judgement.
He was a candidate for President, and it may be that in the course of
that candidacy, expressed some views, as candidates sometimes do, which
try to appeal to a constituency. But from what I have seen, on this
committee and in the Senate, he is not an extremist.
He and I had a very sharp disagreement on a judicial nominee,
Philadelphia Common Please Judge Massiah-Jackson. And she was, in
effect, rejected by the committee, and withdrew her nomination. She was
challenged as being soft on crime because of her record on sentences.
At the end of a very long, difficult and contentious proceeding,
including a hearing before the Judiciary Committee, as I say, she did
withdraw. But at the end of the process, it was my view that John
Ashcroft had expressed his own judgement about it which differed from
mine. I bring in the Judge Massiah-Jackson case because of some
similarities which it has to the case involving Missouri Supreme Court
Justice White.
I said in the hearing that I thought that we did not accord Judge
White the kind of consideration that should have been accorded, because
our practices are to rely principally on staff, the ABA recommendation,
the FBI investigation, without individual Senators paying as much
attention to the district court nominees as we might. I intend on
proposing a rule change that in the event someone is going to speak
adversely about a nominee, that there be an opportunity for the nominee
to respond, and the committee should focus specifically on any charges
which are brought.
But I do think that, at the conclusion, Senator Ashcroft expressed
his own honest views. I think it is important to note that when Judge
White appeared before the committee, he did not ask that Senator
Ashcroft be rejected, he raised the question as to whether Senator
Ashcroft had the qualities to be an attorney general and left it up to
the committee to decide.
Senator Ashcroft made a number of important commitments to the
committee. We questioned him at great length on the difference between
a legislator and a member of the executive branch who enforces the law.
He said categorically that he would not choose to change Roe v. Wade
but would be bound to enforce the law as it stood. He spoke
emphatically about his commitment to enforce access to abortion
clinics. And it was worth noting that, while in the Senate, on a vote
on whether someone who had a judgment against them for damaging an
abortion clinic and there was one case where there was an enormous
judgment in excess of $100 million that the individuals' debt ought not
to be dischargeable in bankruptcy, which I think is an indication as to
his sentiments on that important subject.

Senator Ashcroft also made very firm commitments on recognizing the
distinction between church and state and committed that, to the extent
he was involved, there would be no litmus test on the selection of
Supreme Court nominees.
There were challenges made to what Senator Ashcroft had done as
attorney general on the segregation cases. Former Senator Danforth
appeared during the nomination hearing and spoke about his evaluation
of John Ashcroft being a vigorous advocate.
There was a question raised as to whether as state attorney general
of Missouri Senator Ashcroft used the litigation process
inappropriately. He was not held in contempt. He was not sanctioned
under the federal rules, which he could have been. So on the basis of
that issue and the other objections which have been raised, it seems to
me that this is a nomination and a nominee where we ought to accord the
traditional latitude to the President of the United States. I intend to
vote for Senator Ashcroft's nomination to be Attorney General of the
United States.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I would like to respond to a letter my
colleague Senator Sessions inserted into the Record last evening from
the editor of Southern Partisan magazine. In that letter, the editor
claims that his magazine did not sell a t-shirt celebrating the
assassination of President Abraham Lincoln. In my floor remarks
yesterday, I stated that the magazine did in fact sell this offensive
shirt, and showed my colleagues a reproduction of the actual shirt.
In particular, the editor stated that this ``tasteless item has never
been advertised or sold on the pages of our magazine.'' The editor goes
on to say that a part-time staff member complied a catalog of southern
items, including the offensive Lincoln t-shirt, and that the brochure
advertising those items were mailed ``without careful review by our
editors.''
I would like to insert into the Record a copy of a 1995 letter from
Southern Partisan, which is on the Southern Partisan magazine editor-
in-chief's letterhead, which clearly indicates that the magazine did in
fact sell this offensive shirt. This letter states

[[Page S998]]

in relevant part: ``Due to the surprising demand for our anti-Lincoln
T-shirt, our stock has been reduced to odd sizes. If the enclosed shirt
will not suffice, we will be glad to refund your money or immediately
ship you another equally militant shirt from our catalog [emphasis
added].''
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:

Southern Partisan,

Columbia, SC, December 3, 1995.

Dear Friend: Due to a surprising demand for our anti-
Lincoln T-shirt, our stock has been reduced to odd sizes. If
the enclosed shirt will not suffice, we will be glad to
refund your money or immediately ship you another equally
militant shirt from our catalog.
Thank you,
Southern Partisan General Store.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, America is indeed fortunate to have a
distinguished public servant of the caliber of John Ashcroft who is
willing to serve his country again, this time as Attorney General of
the United States. John is certainly the most qualified Attorney
General nominee of this century and perhaps in the Republic's history.
John has impressive academic credentials and a unique blend of legal,
executive, and legislative experience. I am confident that his
qualifications, combined with his keen sense of duty and unshakeable
integrity, will enable Senator Ashcroft to be one of the finest
Attorneys General in the nation's history and to restore luster to a
tarnished agency.
John is an honors graduate of Yale University. He received his law
degree from the University of Chicago, one of the country's outstanding
law schools. After graduating from law school, John returned home to
Missouri where he practiced law and joined the faculty of what is now
Southwest Missouri State University, teaching business law for five
years. Following that, our colleague, then-Missouri Governor Kit Bond,
appointed John to serve the citizens of Missouri as State Auditor.
John continued his legal career as an assistant Attorney General on
the staff of our former colleague, then-Missouri Attorney General John
Danforth. In this capacity, John Ashcroft gained invaluable first-hand
knowledge of the day-to-day operation of an Attorney General's
Department. This knowledge would serve him well when he became
Missouri's Attorney General in 1976. John, in fact, served two terms as
Missouri's highest law enforcement officer, and as a result of his
eight year tenure in that office, obtained the managerial and executive
experience needed to effectively run an Attorney General's Office.
Under John's leadership, the Missouri Attorney General's Office earned
a reputation for strictly enforcing the law, including laws with which
Attorney General Ashcroft disagreed. John Ashcroft understood well his
role as Missouri's Attorney General; he was acutely aware that
Missourians twice-elected him to enforce the laws, and as his
confirmation hearing before the Judiciary Committee clearly showed,
John assiduously did so.
Because of his success as Attorney General, Missourians elected John
their Governor in 1984 and again in 1988. To illustrate the utter
ridiculousness of one of the most scurrilous charges leveled at John--
that of being ``racially insensitive,'' as some are euphemistically
saying--it must be noted that as Governor, John repeatedly reached out
to black Americans. For example, he appointed the first black woman to
the Western Missouri Court of Appeals; he established the state's first
and only historic site honoring a black American, composer Scott
Joplin; he led the fight to save Lincoln College, founded by black
soldiers; and last month Missourians celebrated the birthday of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. because John Ashcroft signed that proposed
holiday law. John also helped enact Missouri's first hate crimes
legislation. In short, if John Ashcroft is ``racially insensitive,'' he
certainly has a strange way of showing it.
After completing his second term as Governor, John began a career of
national public service as Missouri's junior Senator in the United
States Senate. As a member of this body, John broadened his legal
experience by serving on the Judiciary Committee and by chairing its
Subcommittee on the Constitution. He also continued to fight for the
rights of all Americans, and was dedicated to the principle of equal
treatment under the law. For example, John sponsored legislation
providing equal protection for victims of crime, and he convened the
first hearing on racial profiling, in which he stated for the record
that racial profiling is unconstitutional. And as he did as Missouri
Governor, John continued to support black judicial nominees, voting for
26 of 27 African-American nominees to the federal bench.

As impressive as John's qualifications are, what may be most
impressive about him is his honor and integrity. I had the opportunity
to witness first-hand a test of his character in my capacity as
Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and Chairman
of the Committee on Rules and Administration, which would have had
jurisdiction over an election contest. As we all know, John lost a
heartbreakingly close reelection bid last fall under unorthodox, and
some would say, unlawful circumstances. After the election, my office
was flooded with phone calls and petitions urging John to challenge the
election, and lawyers lined-up to offer their services. Some argued
that John should bring a constitutional challenge on the ground that it
was patently unconstitutional to elect a deceased person to the United
States Senate. Others wanted him to bring an election contest because
of improprieties in the voting itself, such as the fact that heavily-
Democrat precincts remained open after hours.
Either of these challenges may very well have proved successful, and
John might still be a member of this body. But at a minimum, a
challenge would have put Missourians--and the entire Senate--through a
divisive ordeal, and it might well have left the good people of
Missouri without full representation in the United States Senate.
Always the public servant, this is something that John Ashcroft would
not do. As particularly painful as this loss was, John never once
considered challenging the election; he would not put his fellow
Missourians through what the nation had to endure in Florida for
thirty-five days. Moreover, he made it abundantly clear, both in public
and in private, that he did not want others to do so either. Rather
than cling to power in the hope of an eventual victory, John graciously
conceded the election and wished our new colleague well.
This selfless action was that of a statesman, and it reminds me of
the famous words of another statesman, Henry Clay, who said: ``I had
rather be right than be President.'' John Ashcroft's response to this
truly unique and difficult loss in November was essentially: ``I had
rather be right than be Senator.'' And it is because of principled
actions such as this that John is one of the most respected former
members of this body. And because Democratic members know of John's
character and integrity, they speak with confidence about the
outstanding job he would do as Attorney General. For example, our
former colleague, Senator Moynihan, stated that John ``will be a superb
Attorney General.'' And our current colleague, Senator Torricelli, who
knew of John's skill and character from their service together on the
Judiciary Committee, stated that ``While I have obvious philosophical
differences with John, his ability and integrity simply can't be
questioned.''
Now despite John's experience and dedication to duty, I have heard a
lot of people say that he is unfit to be Attorney General because of:
(1) his strong and abiding faith in God; (2) his firm belief in law and
order; and (3) his commitment to the Constitution, even when that
commitment is at odds with those unbiased ``legal scholars'' on the
editorial board of the New York Times. Far from disqualifying him from
public service, however, these qualities only reinforce my belief that
he will ably serve as the nation's chief law enforcement officer. The
Senate would serve the nation by confirming him as Attorney General,
and I urge it to do so.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise to support the confirmation of
President Bush's nominee for Attorney General of the United States,
former Senator John Ashcroft.
After serving in this body with John Ashcroft for the last six years,
I know him as a man of integrity and compassion. That is not to say we
always agree--we have sparred passionately on

[[Page S999]]

issues--not the least of which was abortion rights. Clearly, though,
John is a well-qualified nominee, as evidenced by the fact that of the
67 persons who have served as United States Attorney General in our
history, only John Ashcroft has served as state attorney general,
governor, and U.S. Senator serving on the Judiciary Committee.
In fact, John Ashcroft was State Attorney General and Governor for
two terms each. He was the head of the National Association of
Attorneys General and head of the National Governors' Association. In
these roles, John has a solid record of working with and protecting the
rights of all people.
That John and I hold differing views is certainly not unusual in this
body of one hundred individuals--all with strongly held beliefs, all
with disparate backgrounds, and all representing different
constituencies with distinct concerns and varying priorities. I
respected his right to hold his beliefs, just as he has always
respected my right to the beliefs that I have often expressed in this
very chamber. That is the nature of our representative democracy, and
certainly the nature of the Senate as the embodiment of the union of
states.
Likewise, President Bush, as the duly-elected Chief Executive of the
United States, is accorded the privilege of nominating those men and
women he deems most fit to administer the policies and duties with
which he has been entrusted by the people of this Nation.
I did not agree with all of the personal viewpoints of President
Clinton's various nominees--far from it. Instead, I attempted to judge
the fitness of each nominee based on their individual record,
experience, testimony, and integrity. Recognizing that President
Clinton's nominees would not surprisingly hold different beliefs than
my own in some instances, I asked myself whether or not those beliefs
would, in and of themselves, preclude the nominee from executing his or
her duties to the extent that they would be unfit to serve.
That is the same question I ask myself concerning the nomination of
Senator Ashcroft, keeping in mind that I do not believe that a
nominee's ideological philosophy should be a determining factor in
their ability to serve. As the Portland Press Herald noted in their
January 17 editorial ``Senators have the power of ``advice and
consent'' over such nominees, and they have the power to make judgments
based on whatever criteria they choose. Still, failing to pass an
ideological litmus test is not a sufficient reason to decline to
nominate someone to an appointive post, barring hard evidence of
unsuitability or criminal misconduct. . .''
And what about the power of ``advice and consent'' given to the
Senate under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution? Alexander
Hamilton in summing up this power noted ``To what purpose then require
the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their
concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent
operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism
in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of
unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from
personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.''
And if you review history you will find that this ``check'' as it
were has been used judiciously. The fact is that since 1789--212
years--only 19 cabinet nominees have failed to be confirmed. Clearly
the Senate must have differed with the President on his nominees more
than 19 times over the past 212 years, yet with very few exceptions has
deferred to the President, who will ultimately be held responsible for
his choice.
In short, our use of the ``advice and consent'' power must achieve a
careful balance between our responsibility to check presidential abuse
at one end of the scale, and a respect for the president's
constitutional prerogative on the other. It is a question of degrees
and a matter of judgement left to us to weigh with due diligence and
care.
In the case of John Ashcroft's nomination to be Attorney General, I
would argue that John Ashcroft deserves to be taken at his word with
regard to what he has said at his confirmation hearings. He has said,
clearly and unequivocally, that he will uphold the laws of the United
States of America.
During the confirmation hearings, John Ashcroft was
characteristically straightforward when he said, ``I understand that
being attorney general means enforcing the laws as they are written,
not enforcing my personal preferences. It means advancing the national
interest, not advocating my personal interest.''
During a private meeting in my office, John echoed that pledge and
personally assured me that he would carry out this and other laws on
behalf of every American. That includes Roe v. Wade. That includes
ensuring access to abortion clinics. And I take John Ashcroft at his
word.
He also stated during the hearings that, ``The attorney general must
recognize this: The language of justice is not the reality of justice
for all Americans . . . No American should have the door to employment
or educational opportunity slammed shut because of gender or race. No
American should fear being threatened or coerced in seeking
constitutionally protected health services.'' I commend him for this
sentiment and, again, I take John Ashcroft at his word.
Importantly, John has carried himself with distinction in carrying
out the laws in other elected positions, notably during his terms as
governor and Attorney General of Missouri. As he told the Judiciary
Committee, ``I take pride in my record of having vigorously enforced
the civil rights laws as attorney general and governor,'' and I take
John Ashcroft at his word.
Moreover, not only John's words but his deeds support his strong
commitment to civil rights. As Governor, John signed Missouri's first
hate crimes statute and legislation creating the Martin Luther King
Holiday. He established Missouri's first and only historic site
honoring an African-American, and led the fight to save an independent
Lincoln University, founded by African-American soldiers. Last year, he
convened the only Senate hearing on the subject of racial profiling,
and opened the hearing by unequivocally condemning racial profiling,
calling it ``an unconstitutional practice.''
As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft enforced laws that
differed from his own beliefs in a number of areas, including abortion
and, more specifically, the confidentiality of hospital records on the
number of abortions performed; and church and state issues, such as the
availability of funds for private and religious schools and the
distribution of religious materials in public schools.
As Governor, John was presented on nine occasions with three-
candidate panels for judicial appointments that contained one or more
minority candidates. As he told the Committee in his nomination
hearing, ``I took special care to expand racial and gender diversity in
Missouri's courts,'' and the facts bear that out.
In every instance, he either appointed a minority to the post or
appointed the minority candidates on the panel to judicial positions at
a later date. He appointed more African-American judges to the bench
than any governor in Missouri history.
He appointed the first African-American on the Western District Court
of Appeals. He appointed the first African-American woman to the St.
Louis County Circuit Court.
He appointed the first two women to the Missouri Courts of Appeals.
And he appointed the first woman to the Missouri Supreme Court--the
only woman ever to have been appointed to that court.
Similarly, in the Senate, John supported every single African
American judicial nominee confirmed by the Senate--26 separate
nominations in all. But despite this overwhelming record of supporting
minority judicial candidates, he has been attacked for opposing the
nomination of one African American Judge, Ronnie White--a nominee who
was opposed by 54 members of the Senate, including me.
Judge White's nomination was rejected by the Senate not because of
his race, but because of his opinions in some death penalty cases. It
bears noting that not only was Judge White vigorously opposed by the
National Sheriffs' Association, the Missouri Federation of Police
Chiefs, and numerous other Missouri and national law enforcement
groups, but he also stood as

[[Page S1000]]

the lone dissenter in a death penalty case involving the brutal slaying
of three law enforcement officers in Missouri and the wife of a sheriff
who was killed after she was shot five times, in the family's own home,
as she was holding a church function.
It is critical to note that in 1998, using similar criteria, I
opposed the nomination of Judge Ann Aiken to the federal bench because
of her decision to give probation instead of jail time to a man who
raped a five-year-old child.
And what has Judge White said about John Ashcroft's motivations? He
has said, and I quote, ``. . . let me say, I don't think Senator
Ashcroft is a racist, and I wouldn't attempt to comment on what's in
his mind or what's in his heart.''
Finally, I want to emphasize that there were a number of critical
policy areas on which Senator Ashcroft and I did agree during our
tenure together in the Senate. They deserve mention considering the
criticism that has been leveled against this nominee, and the relevance
of the issues to the post of Attorney General.
John co-sponsored the benchmark Violence Against Women Act, and
helped author the provisions to prevent Internet stalking included in
the legislation. He supported minimum hospital stays for women who give
birth, and a measure to permit breast and cervical cancer coverage by
Medicaid for low-income women.
He supported a provision urging that the ``Attorney General should
fully enforce the law and protect persons seeking to provide or obtain,
or assist in providing or obtaining, reproductive health services from
violent attack,'' and voted to make civil judgments for those who
commit violent acts at abortion clinics non-dischargeable in
bankruptcy--an amendment that I cosponsored.
This is the John Ashcroft I know--a man of ability, remarkable
experience in public service, proven integrity, and unimpeachable
professionalism. As Attorney General, he will be charged not with
writing new laws--as he ably did as a Senator--or interpreting laws--as
a judge would do. Instead, he will be given responsibility as our
nation's top law enforcement official for executing the laws of the
United States on behalf of President Bush and the American people. I am
confident he will enforce the laws to protect all Americans equally,
regardless of his personal views, and I will vote to confirm John
Ashcroft as Attorney General of the United States.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as my colleagues know, I shall vote to
confirm Senator Ashcroft. I discussed the reasons for my doing so in my
statement before the Judiciary Committee. At that meeting, I said:

My colleagues, when we vote today, I'm going to do what I
sincerely believe to be the right thing to do: vote for
confirmation of John Ashcroft as Attorney General of the
United States. For many of my colleagues, friends,
supporters, and constituents, this is not easy to understand.
And some see it as terribly wrong. After all, my voting
record and that of John Ashcroft could hardly be more
different, and there is no question that the opposition has
raised significant and serious concerns about the
appropriateness of this nomination.
Let me begin by noting a few positive aspects of former
Senator John Ashcroft's positions and responses to questions
at his hearing on two issues I care deeply about.
On racial profiling, as I said at the outset of the hearing
on Sen. Ashcroft's nomination, during the last Congress I
found him more receptive to my concerns about the issue than
virtually anyone on the Republican side of the aisle. He and
his staff not only permitted but assisted in a significant
and powerful hearing on racial profiling in the Constitution
Subcommittee. Although he did not ultimately cosponsor our
traffic stop statistics bill, he made constructive
suggestions about the bill, and his interest in addressing
this terrible problem I believe was sincere.
And that sincerity was underlined in recent testimony
before this Committee. He stated that he believes racial
profiling is an unconstitutional practice and that he will
make it a priority of the civil rights division of the
Department to eradicate it. I believe him and I look forward
to working with him on this if he is confirmed.
I have also expressed great concern that whoever assumes
the role of Attorney General of the United States needs to
understand and appreciate a need for fairness in the
administration of the severest punishment our Federal
government can mete out, the death penalty. I understand that
both President Bush and Senator Ashcroft support the use of
capital punishment. But I was relatively pleased with Senator
Ashcroft's responses to my questions, both at the hearing and
in written form, concerning the federal death penalty system.
I was particularly pleased to hear his commitment to
continuing the Justice Department review of racial and
regional disparities in the federal system, a review that was
ordered by President Clinton and is only in its initial
stages. I plan to hold him to his pledge and urge him
carefully to consider the results of this review and address
the disparities before proceeding with any federal
executions.
Having noted at least those areas where I'm hopeful about
working together with John Ashcroft, this process has,
nevertheless, brought forth extremely serious information
that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that this
nomination should not go forward.
The interview with Southern Partisan and his acceptance of
an honorary degree at Bob Jones University raise significant
questions about his sensitivity to the concerns of the
African American community in this country. Even worse, his
failure to fully disavow these actions is troubling. It
seemed almost as if he was playing it safe, trying not to
antagonize certain conservative constituencies rather than
admitting his mistakes and recognizing the need to take
concrete steps to disavow the racist attitudes that both of
those institutions represent to many Americans. He will need
to do much more if he is confirmed to reassure African-
Americans that he will faithfully enforce and apply the civil
rights laws of this country.
On another issue, Senator Ashcroft and the Republican
majority's treatment of Judge Ronnie White was just plain
unfair, and that is why I joined Senator Durbin in
apologizing to him when he appeared before the Committee.
Senator Ashcroft led opposition to Judge White, misleading
our colleagues as to his record and attacking him in harsh
and unfair language without giving him an opportunity to
respond. There was no excuse for this behavior, and it
represents for me an extremely sorry chapter in Senator
Ashcroft's public record. Our Republican colleagues on this
Committee and in the Senate share the responsibility for what
happened. They should not have followed their colleague and
allowed this to become a partisan issue on the floor of the
Senate.
I agree with David Broder, who in a column in which he
stated a number of reasons for supporting John Ashcroft for
Attorney General said that in the end, the Ronnie White
episode could alone justify voting against him. He said that
Ronnie White deserves more than an apology, he deserves an
appointment to the federal bench. I agree and I hope that
Senator Ashcroft and President Bush will give this idea
serious consideration.
And they need to go farther. The White nomination debacle
raised the issue of race on the Senate floor in an
unprecedented and almost tragic manner. The President and his
advisors need to take major steps to right that wrong, and
they can start by urging the Senate promptly to approve the
nomination of Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit Court
of Appeals. I would note that Judge Gregory has received the
endorsement of his home state Senators, Senators Warner and
Allen, both of whom come from the President's party.
Another troubling area is Senator Ashcroft's handling of a
St. Louis desegregation case during his time as Attorney
General of Missouri. I was impressed with the strong
testimony of respected civil rights lawyer Bill Taylor. Mr.
Taylor's testimony and the entire record of this case make it
clear that at best Senator Ashcroft did not ``get'' the role
of the courts in the case and the urgency of resolving the
issue in the best interests of the children in the city. At
worst, he exploited the case for political purposes, which is
very troubling indeed.
Then there is the case of James Hormel, our current
ambassador to Luxembourg, whom Senator Ashcroft strongly
opposed when his nomination was under consideration by the
Senate. This was an extreme example of a pattern of
unwarranted opposition to nominees pursued by Senator
Ashcroft. I am frankly mystified by the notion that in the
21st century a nomination of a distinguished American
would be blocked because of his sexual orientation. This
is another sorry chapter in Senator Ashcroft's record, and
frankly, his responses to written questions from members
of this Committee about his position on this nomination
were unsatisfactory and raise even more questions about
his testimony than they answer. Ambassador Hormel is right
to be outraged by those answers and the insinuations they
contain.
On a related topic, we have the accusations by former
Wisconsin state Senator Paul Offner that Sen. Ashcroft
questioned him about his sexual orientation in a job
interview in 1985. I have worked with both of these people,
and based on information I've seen, I find it hard to
disbelieve either one. But the Offner account does bother me
and while I will vote for Senator Ashcroft in committee
today, I reserve the right to review any further information
in this area that may come forward prior to the final
confirmation vote on the floor. After all, Senator Ashcroft
in sworn testimony told me that he had never used such an
approach in hiring.
In the end, however, this record has to be put in the
context of the standard that I believe should be used when
voting on the confirmation of a cabinet position. And, by the
way, I do find somewhat persuasive the argument that the
position of Attorney General

[[Page S1001]]

is particularly significant, although it does not rise to the
level of a high lifetime judicial appointment.
As a matter of practice, the Senate has, for the most part,
avoided rejecting the President's Cabinet nominations because
of their ideology alone. The Senate may examine, and has
examined, whether the extremity of nominees' views might
prevent them from carrying out the duties of the office they
seek to occupy. But the Senate has nearly uniformly sought to
avoid disapproving nominations because of their philosophy
alone. I believe that we should not begin to do so now.
As my colleagues know, in the practices and precedents of
the Senate, the Senate considers and approves the
overwhelming majority of nominations as a matter of routine.
Over the history of the Senate, the Senate has considered and
approved literally millions of nominations.
The Senate's voting to reject a nominee has been an
exceedingly rare event. Of the 1.7 million nominees received
by the Senate in the last 30 years, the Senate has voted to
reject just 4, or one in every 425,000. Of course, Presidents
often withdraw without a vote the nominations of those who
likely face defeat.
The Senate's voting to reject a nominee to the Cabinet has
been an exceedingly rare event. Over the entire history of
the Senate, the Senate has voted to reject only 9 nominations
to the President's Cabinet. The Senate rejected six in the
19th Century, and three in the 20th Century.
Four of the nine Cabinet nominees rejected were during the
Presidency of President Tyler alone. Several other rejections
may be said to have flowed from larger battles between the
Senate and the President, as when the Senate rejected
President Jackson's nominee to be Secretary of the Treasury
in the wake of the dispute over the Bank of the United
States. Similarly, bad feelings after the impeachment of
President Andrew Johnson led to the Senate's rejection of
President Johnson nominations of his counsel in the
impeachment trial to be Attorney General.
In the 20th Century, the Senate rejected half as many
Cabinet nominees as it did in the 19th Century. In the wake
of the Teapot Dome scandal, the Senate voted down President
Coolidge's nomination of Charles Warren because of his ties
to trusts. Most recently in 1989, the Senate rejected the
nomination of Senator John Tower, an event which many on this
Committee will recall from their own memory.
This examination of the history demonstrates that it has
been a nearly continuous custom of the Senate to confirm a
President's nominees to the Cabinet in all but the very
rarest of circumstances. These practices and precedents thus
support the principle that the Senate owes the President
substantial deference in the selection of the Cabinet.
I should also note, as some members of the committee have
done that all of President Clinton's cabinet appointments
were confirmed overwhelmingly, and usually unanimously,
despite the fact that many Republicans strongly disagreed
with their views. This included the view of Attorney General
Janet Reno in opposition to the death penalty, a view I
strongly share with her but which has enlisted the support of
few of my colleagues.
Now, a number of opponents of this nomination for whom I
have very high regard have sought to go beyond the
traditional standards for cabinet nominations. I think the
most interesting approach that the opponents have laid out,
especially in light of the serious problems with Senator
Ashcroft's record that I have already identified, is the
question of whether Senator Ashcroft will actually enforce
the law. I think my colleague Senator Schumer set up the
question well when he said words to this effect: ``Given
Senator Ashcroft's entire record of passionate advocacy for
very conservative causes: Can he switch it off?'' I think
this is a useful standard but it must be applied with
caution. All of us have observed many talented people taking
very different roles in their careers, sometimes having to
oppose either people or groups for whom they used to
advocate.
Now in my own career, I've certainly been called
unreasonable, unyielding and too persistent on occasion. But
I remember being a defense attorney for large corporations at
a law firm and then subsequently when I went to the Wisconsin
State Senate, voting against those interests every time. I
went into the State Senate representing a largely rural
district and I remember constantly speaking of the need for
rural property tax relief and not letting the City of
Milwaukee run off with the entire budget. Yet, when I became
a United States Senator, I understood my role to have changed
and that I needed to advocate zealously for the very real
needs for the people of our largest city.
So, it seems to me that I've been asked to switch it off on
several occasions. I feel I have done so and that this is
fairly common in the careers of those public men and women.
I think we were all struck by the strength of John
Ashcroft's commitments and answers to our tough questions
which were given under oath. His specific commitments to
enforce the law in several areas were certainly not tepid.
This was especially true with regard to his responses on
choice and abortion-related matters--an area where, as a
policy and constitutional matter I disagree with him
virtually completely. Given Senator Ashcroft's strident
record in this area it is completely understandable to me
that critics would regard this as a ``confirmation
conversion'' and that some would even see this as cynical
with carefully chosen words with regard to Roe v. Wade,
leaving the door open for a very different reality in the new
Attorney General's office. I, for one, will not stand by and
allow a departure from the clear impression that Senator
Ashcroft offered as an assurance. In fact, one area I will
closely scrutinize is his choices for top level positions in
the Department of Justice. He will have direct responsibility
for carrying out the promises he made to this Committee and
the country.
But I do take some umbrage at the notion that giving John
Ashcroft's sworn testimony the benefit of the doubt is
somehow because of Senate collegiality. No, it is because it
is sworn testimony.
But I do understand the very strong skepticism on this
point in light of the incidents I've already reviewed
especially as they relate to the blocking of nominations, a
process in which John Ashcroft too often participated. I
cannot question anyone for opposing this nomination, anyone
for coming to an opposite conclusion of this record. It
simply depends on one's view of the cabinet nomination
process. It is a judgement call. I feel obligated under the
traditional understanding of how cabinet appointments are
handled to not put the worst possible interpretation on these
facts. And I specifically cannot justify constructing the
worst case scenario solely because Senator Ashcroft seemed to
do the same for a number of very worthy nominees. It is
certainly tempting to do so, but I am afraid it looks too
much like political ``payback,'' a lesson that would not be
lost in future cabinet confirmation considerations, including
those involving the choices of a Democratic President. I
don't want to be a part of taking the United States Senate
and this country further down the road that John Ashcroft and
others in his party paved during the Clinton years.
Having said that, I want to hasten to add that I'm not at
all sure that this kind of deference be given anymore on
lifetime federal judicial appointments given what appears to
be an open assault in recent years by the U.S. Senate on the
federal judiciary. As I said in my opening statement at the
confirmation hearing, although Democrats are being asked to
follow the political golden rule on this nomination, I
certainly agree that the line must be drawn at some point
concerning the politicization of appointments. My judgment is
that this is not the place--not this nomination or this
office, as terribly important as it is.
And yes, I firmly believe that as a progressive, this is
about our future credibility and ability to move our agenda
in a future administration that better reflects on voting
records and beliefs, which in most cases are just the
opposite of a John Ashcroft's.
I know that some see this as futile or naive in light of
the unbending ``other side.'' They may be right. But I
believe the American people desperately want us to conduct
ourselves, where possible, in a bipartisan manner: with
civility, with give and take, and act as if those terms have
real meaning and are not just empty rhetoric.
So when I vote for John Ashcroft in committee, I am
reaching out to the new Administration and to my Republican
colleagues and especially those on the opposite side of this
committee. I believe we share mutual respect. So I am
extending to you at the beginning of this new Republican
Administration an olive branch, but it is not a white flag I
assure you. This is about the Department of Justice and it is
justice I want to see for the wrong done to Judge Ronnie
White. And it is justice I want to see done in the 4th
Circuit Court of Appeals where the largest African American
population lives and has never had an African American judge
until the recess appointment of Roger Gregory. It is justice
I want for numerous other circuit court nominees who
languished in this committee for years and never even
received a hearing. And it is justice I want for the future
James Hormels and Bill Lann Lees who were most assuredly
treated unfairly. And it is justice I want for the the
victims of racial profiling in America. And I will press this
Administration, the Attorney General, and this committee to
prevent it from happening to others in the future.
So I am genuinely appealing to you to show in concrete ways
in the near future that you are concerned about the obviously
heartfelt and legitimate feelings of many Americans that the
Senate's role in the nominations process has been abused and
overly politicized. There are real fault lines emerging in
our culture and in our political system and repairs must be
made. And some who have been harmed can and must be made
whole.
In fact, one of the most eloquent statements to this effect
came just this month in President George W. Bush's Inaugural
Address: ``Sometimes our differences run so deep it seems we
share a continent, but not a country.'' I think he's right
and I think this committee is the place to begin to repair
the breach. That means for me the very difficult decision to
vote to confirm John Ashcroft, but it also means immediate
concrete efforts by the President and his party to mend the
wounds that led to such fierce opposition to the Ashcroft
nomination. It, of course, also means that the new Attorney
General must vigorously enforce the law and be the Attorney
General of all the people, regardless of race, religion,
gender or sexual

[[Page S1002]]

orientation. If he does that, he will earn the support of the
American people. If he does not, I will be the first to call
him on it and demand that he be held accountable.

That was my statement in the Judiciary Committee.
I rise today to speak more generally on the Senate's role of advice
and consent in the President's nomination of individuals to the
Cabinet. I rise also to speak a bit about the appointment process in
general, apart from the discussion of any particular nomination. This
analysis governs my consideration of both Senator Ashcroft's and Ms.
Norton's nominations.
John Adams wrote that we seek ``[a] government of laws, and not of
men.'' He and other Founders sought a government based on principles,
not on personalities. If we, as Senators, wish to serve that end in the
nomination process, we must measure Cabinet nominations according to
principle, with a look at the past and a view to the future.

The first principle that I think should govern Cabinet nominations is
what one might call the political Golden Rule. We, as Democrats,
should, if at all possible, do unto the Republicans as we would have
the Republicans do unto us. A Democratic President ought to be able to
appoint to the Cabinet principled people of strong progressive
ideology. And a Republican President ought to be able to appoint to the
Cabinet principled people of strong conservative ideology.
Now, some of our Republican colleagues have certainly failed too
often in recent years to follow that Golden Rule, and I understand the
desire to repay them in kind. To some degree, I share that desire. But
I am determined to resist it for the good of the country, the health of
the nomination process, and ultimately, to advance the prospects of
future nominees who share the unabashedly progressive convictions that
I hold dear.
This principle means that, except in the rarest of cases, voting
records and conservative ideology alone should not be a sufficient
basis to reject at least a Cabinet nominee. I say this as a progressive
Democrat from Wisconsin who hopes that future Presidents may appoint
the William O. Douglasses and Ramsey Clarks of their times, and that
future Senates will not reject them for Cabinet positions on the basis
of their ideology alone.
It should not be a requirement for a Cabinet position that the
nominee travel solely in the middle of the road. There will come great
leaders on the left and on the right.
If we seek the great minds of our times, they may on occasion blow
hot or cold. We should not require all the leaders of our country to
run a tepid lukewarm.
Now, whether nominating a staunch conservative is good politics or,
more importantly, whether it is wise, in light of a promise to unify
the nation after a very close election, is an important issue for a
sustained national debate. But that question is not at the core of our
responsibility in this body to advise and consent on Cabinet
nominations.
Alexander Hamilton wrote of the dangers of partisanship in the
nomination process in Federalist number 76. He cited the partisanship
of legislatures as one of the reasons why the Constitution did well to
vest the power to nominate in the President, rather than in the
Congress. Considering what would happen if the Constitution had given
the Congress the power to nominate, Hamilton wrote:

The choice which may at any time happen to be made under
such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a
victory gained by one party over the other, or of a
compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic
merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the
first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the
suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those
which fit the person for the station. In the last, the
coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent:
``Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have
the one you wish for that.'' This will be the usual condition
of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the
advancement of the public service will be the primary object
either of party victories or of party negotiations.

So Hamilton wrote in Federalist 76. Thus we honor Hamilton's
cautionary warning, and we advance the public service, by avoiding
partisanship in the confirmation process.
As a matter of practice, the Senate has, for the most part, limited
its consideration of the President's Cabinet nominees to an inquiry
into the nominees' fitness for office. The Senate must examine, and has
examined, the qualifications of nominees. William Blackstone wrote in
his Commentaries on the Laws of England, a work well known among the
Founders, that ``[a]ll offices . . . carry in the eye of the law an
honour along with them; because they imply a superiority of . . .
abilities, being supposed to be always filled with those that are most
able to execute them.'' The Senate has thus nearly uniformly sought to
test the ability of nominees to execute the office that they seek to
occupy.
But as a matter of practice, the Senate has, for the most part,
avoided rejecting the President's Cabinet nominations because of their
ideology alone. The Senate may examine, and has examined, whether the
extremity of nominees' views might prevent them from carrying out the
duties of the office they seek to occupy. But the Senate has nearly
uniformly sought to avoid disapproving nominations because of their
philosophy alone. I believe that we should not begin to do so now.
Mr. President, the second principle that I think should govern
nominations is that the Senate owes the President substantial deference
in the selection of the Cabinet. The Constitution vests the appointment
power primarily in the President. This choice of the Founders, in turn,
flows from the Constitution's imposing on the President the duty
faithfully to execute the laws of our Nation.
Article 2, section 1 of the Constitution begins: ``The executive
power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.''
That section ends by requiring the President-elect to take the oath
``that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United
States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States.'' And article 2, section
3 provides that the President ``shall take care that the laws be
faithfully executed.''
To carry out that duty, the President needs policy-makers in the
executive branch, particularly in the Cabinet and subcabinet, who will
support the President's program, as well as carry out the law. The
Supreme Court in Myers v. United States explained:

Our conclusion . . . is that Article II grants to the
President the executive power of the Government, i.e., the
general administrative control of those executing the
laws, including the power of appointment and removal of
executive officers--a conclusion confirmed by his
obligation to take care that the laws be faithfully
executed; . . . and . . . that to hold otherwise would
make it impossible for the President, in case of political
or other differences with the Senate or Congress, to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Thus article 2, section 2 of the Constitution confers the appointment
power in the following language:

The President . . . shall nominate, and by and with the
advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors,
other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme
Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose
appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which
shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest
the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think
proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in
the heads of departments.

Let me begin my discussion of this language with an analysis of its
history.
With this language, the Constitutional Convention made a change from
the Articles of Confederation. Article 9 of the Articles of
Confederation vested appointment powers in the Congress or a committee
of Congress. That article provides, in relevant part:

The United States in Congress assembled, shall have the
sole and exclusive right and power of . . . appointing courts
for the trial of piracies and felonies committed on the high
seas. . . .
The United States in Congress assembled shall also have the
sole and exclusive right and power of . . . appointing all
officers of the land forces, in the service of the United
States, excepting regimental officers--appointing all the
officers of the naval forces, and commissioning all officers
whatever in the service of the United States. . . .
The United States in Congress assembled shall have
authority . . . to appoint such other . . . civil officers as
may be necessary for managing the general affairs of the
United States under their direction. . . .

And finally:

[[Page S1003]]

The United States in Congress assembled shall never . . .
appoint a commander in chief of the army or navy, unless nine
States assent to the same. . . .

Recall that one of the prime reasons for the Constitutional
Convention that wrote our current Constitution was that the Articles of
Confederation provided a government that proved less than workable. The
Founders thus sought consciously to depart from this legislative
government in favor of a stronger executive.
When the Constitutional Convention began to debate the Constitution,
its working draft initially provided for the Congress to choose the
national judiciary. Many of the Framers found fault with this proposal.
Pennsylvania's James Wilson argued that appointment by a group with
numerous members would necessarily lead to ``[i]ntrigue, partiality,
and concealment.'' He argued: ``A principal reason for unity in the
Executive was that officers might be appointed by a single, responsible
person.''
Virginia's James Madison agreed, saying, ``Besides the danger of
intrigue and partiality, many of the members were not judges of the
requisite qualifications. The Legislative talents . . . were very
different from those of a Judge. . . .''
Massachusetts's Nathaniel Gorham, who in the Convention was an early
proponent of the structure finally adopted in the Constitution, also
emphasized the value of focusing responsibility on the President.
Madison's notes report him saying:

The Executive would certainly be more answerable for a good
appointment, as the whole blame of a bad one would fall on
him alone. . . . [N]ot . . . that he would be answerable
under any other penalty than that of public censure, which
with honorable minds was a sufficient one.

Pennsylvania's Gouverneur Morris argued that the President would need
to deal with every part of the United States, and would thus be best
informed about the character of potential nominees. Madison's notes
report:

Mr. Gouverneur Morris argued against the appointment of
officers by the Senate. He considered the body as too
numerous for the purpose; as subject to cabal; and as devoid
of responsibility.--If Judges are to be tried by the Senate .
. . it was particularly wrong to let the Senate have the
filling of vacancies which its own decrees were to create.

Gouverneur Morris later summed up: ``[A]s the President was to
nominate, there would be responsibility, and as the Senate was to
concur, there would be security.''
When they reported home to their Governor, Connecticut's Roger
Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth cited the protection of the rights of
smaller states, writing: ``The equal representation of the States in
the Senate and the voice of that branch in the appointment to offices
will secure the rights of the lesser as well as of the greater
States.'' The Supreme Court in Myers v. United States cited this as a
major purpose for the creation of the Senate's power of advice and
consent, saying:

The history of the clause by which the Senate was given a
check upon the President's power of appointment makes it
clear that it was not prompted by any desire to limit
removals. . . . [T]he important purpose of those who brought
about the restriction was to lodge in the Senate, where the
small States had equal representation with the larger States,
power to prevent the President from making too many
appointments from the larger States.

After the Convention settled on the language now in the Constitution,
proponents and opponents of executive power alike agreed that the
President received the paramount role.
New York's Alexander Hamilton, who wanted a strong Presidency, wrote
in Federalist number 76:

[I]t is easy to show, that every advantage to be expected .
. . would, in substance, be derived from the power of
nomination . . . . In the act of nomination, his judgment
alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to
point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate,
should fill an office, his responsibility would be as
complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There
can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and
appointing.

Similarly, Maryland's Luther Martin, who feared too strong a
Presidency, wrote in the Genuine Information:

To that part of this article . . . which gives the
President a right to nominate, and with the consent of the
Senate to appoint all the officers, civil and military, of
the United States, there were considerable opposition--it was
said that the person who nominates, will always in reality
appoint . . . .

In the ratification debates, insofar as they addressed the nomination
process, Hamilton's two Federalist Papers, numbers 76 and 77, stand
most prominently. In Federalist number 76, Hamilton picked up the theme
of the value of focusing responsibility on the President, writing:

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will
naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact
regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself
under stronger obligations, and more interested to
investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations
to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who
may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have fewer
personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may
each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much
the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship
and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single
understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that
diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently
distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body.

Hamilton also wrote of responsibility in Federalist number 77, where
he wrote:

The blame of a bad nomination would fall upon the President
singly and absolutely. The censure of rejecting a good one
would lie entirely at the door of the Senate; aggravated by
the consideration of their having counteracted the good
intentions of the Executive. If an ill appointment should be
made, the Executive for nominating, and the Senate for
approving, would participate, though in different degrees, in
the opprobrium and disgrace.

In the discussion among the Founders that touches most closely on the
Senate's role in the nomination process, Hamilton wrote that he
expected the Senate to reject nominees rather infrequently, but that
the potential of such rejections would provide a useful check. Hamilton
wrote:

But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it
might, yet this could only be to make place for another
nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must
be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the
first degree. It is also not very probable that his
nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be
tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to
reject the one proposed; because they could not assure
themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought
forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They
could not even be certain, that a future nomination would
present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them;
and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the
individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a
reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is
not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where
there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.

Hamilton concluded:

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

The first Congress, which included among its Members several of the
Founders, had occasion to discuss the appointment power. Georgia's
Abraham Baldwin, for one, had been a delegate to the Constitutional
Convention, and then became a Congressman. In arguing against extending
the Senate's advice and consent power to removals from office, he said:
I am well authorized to say that the mingling of the powers
of the President and Senate was strongly opposed in the
Convention which had the honor to submit to the consideration
of the United States and the different States the present
system for the government of the Union. Some gentlemen
opposed it to the last, and finally it was the principal
ground on which they refused to give it their signature and
assent. One gentleman called it a monstrous and unnatural
connection and did not hesitate to affirm it would bring on
convulsions in the government. This objection was not
confined to the walls of the Convention; it has been subject
of newspaper declamation and perhaps justly so. Ought we not,
therefore, to be careful not to extend this unchaste
connection any further?

Similarly, James Madison became a Congressman in the first Congress,
where he said:

Perhaps there was no argument urged with more success or
more plausibly grounded against the Constitution under which
we are now deliberating than that founded on the mingling of
the executive and legislative branches of the Government in
one body. It has been objected that the Senate have too much
of the executive power even, by having control over the
President in the appointment to office. Now shall we extend
this connexion between the legislative and executive
departments which will strengthen the

[[Page S1004]]

objection and diminish the responsibility we have in the head
of the Executive?

The Supreme Court in Myers v. United States concluded from this
history that it should read narrowly the Senate's power of advice and
consent, saying: ``Our conclusion . . . is . . . that the provisions of
the second section of Article II, which blend action by the legislative
branch, or by part of it, in the work of the executive, are limitations
to be strictly construed and not to be extended by implication . . .
.''
Let me turn now briefly to the history of the process of advice and
consent in the Senate. Many of my Colleagues will have read the
excellent discussion of that history in volume 2, chapter 2, of Senator
Byrd's history of the Senate. For those who have not, I recommend it.
As my Colleagues know, in the practices and precedents of the Senate,
the Senate considers and approves the overwhelming majority of
nominations as a matter of routine. Over the history of the Senate, the
Senate has considered and approved literally millions of nominations.
The Senate Executive Journal began totaling the number of nominations
received and confirmed beginning in 1929. From then until now, the
Senate has received more than 2.9 million nominations and confirmed
more than 2.8 million. Over that period, the Senate has confirmed 97.9
percent of the nominations that it received. Among those not confirmed,
many simply remained unconfirmed at the end of a Congress.
The Senate's voting to reject a nominee has been an exceedingly rare
event. Of the 1.7 million nominees received by the Senate in the last
30 years, the Senate has voted to reject just 4, or one in every
425,000. Of course, Presidents often withdraw without a vote the
nominations of those who likely face defeat.
The Senate's voting to reject a nominee to the Cabinet has been an
even more exceedingly rare event. Over the entire history of the
Senate, the Senate has voted to reject only 9 nominations to the
President's Cabinet. The Senate rejected 6 in the 19th Century, and 3
in the 20th Century.
Four of the 9 Cabinet nominees rejected were during the Presidency of
President Tyler alone. Several other rejections may be said to have
flowed from larger battles between the Senate and the President, as
when the Senate rejected President Jackson's nominee to be Secretary of
the Treasury in the wake of the dispute over the Bank of the United
States. Similarly, bad feelings after the impeachment of President
Andrew Johnson led to the Senate's rejection of President Johnson's
nomination of his counsel in the impeachment trial to be Attorney
General.
In the 20th Century, the Senate rejected half as many Cabinet
nominees as it did in the 19th Century. In the wake of the Teapot Dome
scandal, the Senate voted down President Coolidge's nomination of
Charles Warren because of his ties to trusts. The Senate voted down
President Eisenhower's nomination of Lewis Strauss, some say because of
Admiral Strauss's lack of tack. Most recently, in 1989, the Senate
rejected the nomination of Senator John Tower, an event which many in
the Senate will recall from their own memory.
This examination of the history demonstrates that it has been a
nearly continuous custom of the Senate to confirm a President's
nominees to the Cabinet in all but the very rarest of circumstances.
These practices and precedents thus support the principle that the
Senate owes the President substantial deference in the selection of the
Cabinet.
Bearing in mind this history and Hamilton's admonition that the
Senate's ``dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual
rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the
judgment of the chief magistrate,'' what then should be, in Hamilton's
words, the ``special and strong reasons for the refusal'' that should
prompt the Senate to reject a nominee to the Cabinet?
It is in the nature of the Constitution's grant of powers to the
Senate that each Senator must make his or her own decision how to vote
on nominees whom the Senate considers. It thus follows that each
decision must to some extent be subjective. But we do injury to the
reputation of the Senate when we cannot articulate our reasons for
rejecting a nominee as the expression of rules that could have
universal application.
It is the nature of justice that different persons of similar
circumstances should receive similar treatment. Let us do justice when
the Senate exercises its role of advice and consent.
Let us examine nominees to see that they have, in Blackstone's words,
``superiority of . . . abilities''; let us see that they are ``most
able to execute'' the offices for which they are nominated.
Let us thoroughly investigate nominees' competence and experience.
Let us question whether they have taken actions that would lead us to
doubt their ability fully and fairly to execute their offices.
Let us explore nominees' integrity and ensure that they have the
proper ethical bearing to administer the high trusts to which they are
nominated.
And yes, let us guard against approving the nomination of an
individual who stands so far at variance with the core values of this
Nation--values of freedom, democracy, and equality--that we cannot
realistically imagine the nominee's being able to carry out the duties
of an office in our American government. That will necessarily be a
subjective judgment, but plainly a legitimate one.
But let us conduct our investigation in matters such as these that
involve the lives and reputations of other people--people almost
uniformly highly regarded in the community--with civility. Let us take
pains to avoid casting the kind of personal ``stigma'' that Hamilton
feared. And let us, when we hold the honor and careers of people in our
hands, do what we can to diffuse the bitter viciousness that has seized
so much of official Washington.
I propose that we govern ourselves by principle, as a Democrat at the
outset of a new Republican Presidency, in the hope that we may rise
above that which has come before. For I cannot help but express my
objection to the attitude and approach that the Republican majority in
the Senate took toward the nominees of the Democratic President since
the Republicans took control of the majority in 1994.
In some respects, the Republican majority seemed not even to accept
the legitimacy of President Clinton's electoral victories in 1992 and
1996. Elections must have consequences.
Instead, it appeared to me that they unfairly blocked very
legitimate, qualified appointees such as Bill Lann Lee, Ronnie White,
and James Hormel.
I think this was wrong. But I propose that we Democrats not return
the favor, escalating a never-ending harshening of our discourse.
Rather, I propose that we treat this new Republican President the way
that we would want a Republican majority to treat a Democratic
President in the future.
It is not easy for me to tell those who fought so hard for President
Clinton and then for Vice-President Gore that we should follow the
Golden Rule, and that we should treat President Bush better than the
Republican majority treated President Clinton. And should the new
President abuse the Senate's deference, there may come a point when we
have to draw a line and say, ``No more,'' given the Republican
majority's refusal to accord a Democratic President the very deference
that Republicans now seek.
I want to make clear the manner in which I have evaluated both of the
controversial nominees before this body, the nominee we consider today,
former Senator Ashcroft, and the nominee who was confirmed Tuesday, Ms.
Norton. I am no more comfortable with these votes and appointments than
anyone else of my personal ideological viewpoint.
I fully understand and have heard the pain expressed by my
constituents who have strongly criticized these nominations and who
devote their time and thought to building broader public support for an
end to all forms of discrimination or for reproductive rights or for an
environmentally sound energy policy or for wildlands protection. I must
work hard every day on issues affecting the public interest and public
welfare, and, in order to move a progressive agenda forward I must sit
and listen and talk with those who deeply and profoundly disagree with
me. These nominees and I do not agree on a number of issues. But the
question that this

[[Page S1005]]

body faces, and that I face as a member of it, is broader than whether
or not we are having a referendum on the ideological views expressed by
these nominees.
I have reflected and given thought to the deeper historical and
philosophical roots of the process of the Senate giving ``advice and
consent'' to Cabinet nominees. In this history of the Senate's
treatment of Cabinet nominations, deference is an important principle.
Lack of that deference on nominees can result in a confirmation process
that is undignified for the country, unlikely to produce outstanding
public servants, and unable to advance the debate on matters of public
policy.
I am attempting by these votes to assist in restoring the Senate's
credibility and trust, and I will use the powers of my office to make
certain these nominees live up to the views they have expressed to this
body under oath.
And let me underscore that I have risen today to address nominations
to the Cabinet, who will serve for a term of years, and whom we should
consider under a far looser standard than that we should apply to
judges and certainly justices, who will serve for life.
But I fear that in the process of giving its advice and consent with
regard to nominations to the President's Cabinet, the Senate is
positioning itself to head down a road to a dangerous place. Let us
decide not to go down that road.
Let us not go down the road to where those who seek public office
must all their life avoid any forceful public utterance.
Let us not go down the road to where young people--college students
and graduate students--will fear to experiment with new ideas.
Let us not go down the road to where expression is squelched and
thoughts are stifled.
Let us not go down the road to that arid place where public discourse
is barren because no public leaders dare write articles declaring their
views.

Let us not go down the road to where Senators fear to take a
position, make a statement, or cosponsor a bill on a controversial
issue, like the death penalty--one way or the other--just to avoid a
confirmation fight.
Let us not go down the road to that frozen place where the Senate's
nomination process imposes a deep chill over political discourse among
all who would someday hold office.
And let us not go down a road to where in order to serve our Country,
one must become like milk toast, like Pablum.
Rather, let us work together in this government, working with
vigorous minds who may sometimes have vigorous opinions.
The American People expect this Senate and this government, divided
as it is, to govern. We owe them no less than to try to do so.
Now is not too soon to start. I extend to President Bush the hand of
cooperation as he begins his administration. I will cast my votes on
nominations he proposes according to these principles, and hope that
the President and the majority will return the favor, and work together
with us in a truly bipartisan manner.
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the United States Constitution
expressly grants to the Senate the prerogative, responsibility, and
duty to determine its ``advice and consent'' to the nominations of all
Presidents. This is an important, even awesome mandate, and one no
Senator takes lightly. While the Senate's constitutional role is
plainly much more than a mere rubber stamp, the President also should
be given wide latitude in the people he chooses to run our government
with him.
Over the last several weeks, I have voted to approve all but one of
President Bush's cabinet nominations. I have done so because, on the
whole, I believe his nominees are an impressive, diverse, and well-
qualified group who reflect the broad spectrum of America's
philosophical and cultural backgrounds.
Of course, without exception, they appear to represent the views of
the new President who nominated them. Beyond their fundamental ability
to do the job, their views and ideologies have been of little
consequence to my decisions. Instead, an important additional
characteristic I have looked for, particularly at this time in our
nation's history, is a proven ability to bring people together. I seek
nominees who will welcome diverse points of view and ideas and who will
lead in building consensus. In that vein, I have given my full support
to 18 of the cabinet nominations sent to the Senate by President Bush
this year.
The nominee before us today, however, is not one I can support.
The United States Attorney General has a particularly compelling and
important role, as evidenced by this vigorous debate. The Attorney
General is known as the President's legal advisor and the people's
lawyer. He or she is charged with leading our nation in interpreting,
enforcing, and upholding our laws. He must be a person who embodies
balance and evenhandedness, so that all of our citizens feel fully and
fairly represented by his actions. He must be able to contribute in a
meaningful way to the great challenge of uniting our nation. That is my
test for this nomination.
Former Senator John Ashcroft is a man that I have come to know here
in the United States Senate. I have served with him on the Senate
Commerce Committee and spent many hours observing and participating
with him in debate. Throughout his service here, and earlier as
Governor and Attorney General in the State of Missouri, he has shown a
strong moral compass and passionately held views about what he wants
for our country and its citizens.
As Senate colleagues, we have sometimes agreed, and more often
disagreed on policy and legislation. In many cases, his legislative
agenda was not one that I thought helped or protected West Virginia's
working families, seniors and children. But, again, my test for
Attorney General is not whether I share John Ashcroft's views on any
particular issue or matter.
I have great respect for John Ashcroft as a person of deeply held
religious beliefs, and his particular faith is of no consequence for me
in this decision. In fact, I have been personally offended by a few who
suggest that someone's religion might be a consideration in this or any
other decision I make. I unequivocally reject that type of thinking and
believe my own long record proves otherwise.
John Ashcroft has been honest in his convictions and his principles,
and he has fashioned his public life working to advance his firmly held
beliefs. He is a man of strong, unbending ideology--so unbending, in
fact, that this is what makes him the wrong choice for Attorney
General. I have plainly seen in John Ashcroft a basic inability to
compromise or to reach out to those with opposing or different points
of view.
The problem is not John Ashcroft's ideology. It is the fact that he
never seems able to look beyond that ideology to respect and encompass
others' equally strong beliefs and convictions. There is nothing in his
long history of public service to suggest he can rise to the challenge
of being a uniter, someone who can compromise when necessary to bring
us all together.
Furthermore, I have heard John Ashcroft's promise to uphold and
enforce our laws, and I take him at his word. But the question of his
nomination and the role of Attorney General are not that simple. If
they were, then every person nominated to a position charged with
upholding the law would be approved--every judge, every U.S. Attorney,
every Cabinet Secretary. Reasonable people have honest disagreements
about what the law says and how to apply it in different situations.
The law is not always precise, and the path to justice is not always
clearly marked.
The Attorney General instead has a great deal of discretion, and he
must bring to that discretion his own standards, experiences and
beliefs. Deciding which cases to defend and which to prosecute, which
judges and proposed changes in the law to support and which to oppose,
where to dedicate limited resources and where to cut back all are tasks
that call for objectivity, balance, and leadership.
Mr. President, after carefully reviewing all of the facts and
circumstances, and after lengthy personal reflection, I am not
convinced that John Ashcroft can do the job of Attorney General without
returning to his life-long rejection of moderation and conciliation.
John Ashcroft proudly judges issues and people on the basis of his
own strong ideology. Time and again I have seen John Ashcroft show
hostility and

[[Page S1006]]

insensitivity toward those who disagree with him or who hold ideals and
values that differ from his. He has never hesitated to use his views as
a test to judge others. This uncompromising approach is not what I
think our country wants and expects from its leaders.
I do not stand in judgment of my former Senate colleague, but I must
reject his nomination for Attorney General.
Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I had every intention to once again, as I
have done in the past, support the President's choice of Cabinet
members. The President was elected, he selected his team, and his
choices should be respected. In the case of former Senator John
Ashcroft's nomination as the U.S. Attorney General, the President's
choice will be respected by a majority vote of the Senate. However, if
I supported the nomination of Senator Ashcroft, my vote may be
misunderstood not only by my supporters and constituents, but by many
others.
It should also be noted that the Constitution reserves to the Senate
the power of advice and consent as to the President's nominations. I
hope that my opposition, together with the opposition of several of my
colleagues, will advise the President of our concerns as to his
nomination of Senator Ashcroft.
As a person, my experience in serving with Senator Ashcroft has been
a positive one, but I have found myself on most occasions casting my
vote in disagreement with Senator Ashcroft. For example, he is for the
death penalty; I am against the death penalty. He supports doing away
with abortion; I am for freedom of choice. I have also examined Senator
Ashcroft's record away from Capitol Hill, and I have found that his
actions have been consistent with the views he held when we were
colleagues on the floor of the Senate.
Senator Ashcroft's actions in the area of civil rights raise
questions as to his commitment to preserving the civil rights of all
Americans. As the Governor of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft vetoed bills
designed to ensure the equal treatment of African American voters. As
the Attorney General of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft actively obstructed
the voluntary desegregation plan for the City of St. Louis.
Similarly, Senator Ashcroft's record on reproductive rights causes me
some concern. Throughout his political life, Senator Ashcroft has
believed that there is no constitutional right to abortion, and has
worked to overturn Roe v. Wade by State and Federal legislation and by
constitutional amendment. Senator Ashcroft's persistent efforts to
limit reproductive rights as Missouri's attorney general and Governor,
and as a U.S. Senator suggest the policies he might endorse as the U.S.
Attorney General.
I realize that I may be in the minority in my opposition to the death
penalty, but I have been against execution as a criminal punishment
since the start of my political career. For example, I coauthored the
measure in the Territorial Legislature of Hawaii that abolished capital
punishment, and from that time forward, no convicted criminal in Hawaii
has been put to death. Senator Ashcroft does not share my views on this
subject. Indeed, as Governor of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft took the
position that the death penalty was appropriate for teenagers, and
denied that there is any racial disparity in the application of the
death penalty. I do not share these beliefs, and I think that Hawaii's
experience with the death penalty points to opposite conclusions.
Knowing these and the many other aspects of Senator Ashcroft's record
that have come to light in recent days, I have some difficulty seeing
him as the next U.S. Attorney General--so much difficulty that I
believe I must exercise my Senatorial right of advice and consent and
cast my vote in opposition to the nomination to make sure the record is
clear.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I daresay that each of us has received an
enormous amount of correspondence 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
he applied, as Senator, to the disposition of Presidential nominations.
We must begin by deliberating on the standard to be applied to
confirmation decisions. The Constitution merely states that the
President shall appoint public ministers with the ``advice and
consent'' of the Senate. This is not a specific standard, nor even a
mandate to review particular features of a 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 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 a deeply
religious man, that solemn vow, I am sure, will not be taken lightly by
him. 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.'' Further, 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, I have no cause to doubt Senator Ashcroft's word or
his sincerity regarding his fealty to an oath he will swear before God
Almighty. 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.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as we prepare to close debate on the
nomination of our former colleague, Senator John Ashcroft to be the
Attorney General for the United States, I want to first thank a few
people. First, let me thank Senator Leahy, the Ranking Democrat Member
on the Judiciary Committee. He faced a difficult task in organizing the
hearing for this nomination and working for a fair process. I want to
express my gratitude to him and commend his staff, including the
Minority Chief Counsel, Bruce Cohen, Senator Leahy's General Counsel,
Beryl Howell, Mary DeOreo, Natalie Carter, and others.
I would also like to thank the other members of the committee for
their diligence regarding this matter. In particular let me thank
Senator Kyl who has been a tremendous advocate in the effort supporting
this nomination, and let me also mention Senator Sessions for his hard
work in behalf of the nomination.
I also want to commend those Senators on the other side of the aisle,
who despite intense pressure from and relentless lobbying by a number
of left-wing groups have stood up for what they believed was right and
announced their support for this nominee. I especially want to express
to my colleague on the Judiciary Committee, Senator Feingold, how much
my respect for

[[Page S1007]]

him has grown watching him speak in support of and cast his vote for
John Ashcroft. I know that he has been targeted by petitions and email
campaigns orchestrated by People for the American Way and others to
pressure him, but he has not buckled, and I congratulate him for his
courage to take a principled stand.
I would also like to thank the Administration and Transition staff
who worked on this matter. And let me also thank my Committee staff who
worked literally around the clock to assist me and my colleagues in
moving this nomination forward. I believe everyone on the committee
staff has worked tirelessly, but let me especially recognize the
Committee's Chief Counsel, Sharon Prost, the Committee's Staff
Director, Makan Delrahim, our fine and able counsels, Shawn Bentley,
Stephen Higgins, Ed Haden, Rhett DeHart, Gary Malphrus, Rita Lari, Lee
Otis, Neomi Rao, Rene Augustine, Pat O'Brien, Larry Block, Alex Dahl,
Jeff Taylor, Leah Belaire, and John Kennedy, and our valued staff
members, Amy Haywood, Kent Cook, Jessica Caseman, Swen Prior, and Jared
Garner, and of course our most able press staff, who kept us informed
of the smear campaigns, Jeanne Lopatto and Margarita Tapia. They
all worked together as a team with numerous others, including Senator
Gramm's staff, Senator Bond's staff, as well as the able staff of the
Senate Leadership, particularly Dave Hoppe and Robert Wilkie of Senator
Lott's staff and Stewart Verdery of Senator Nickles' staff.

Now let me turn to the nomination itself. Mr. President, I believe we
are about to confirm one of the most qualified candidates for the
office of Attorney General that we have ever had. John Ashcroft has
superb credentials, and he is well-prepared to be Attorney General. In
addition to graduating from one of our finest law schools, here is a
man who has almost 30 years of public service to this country--eight
years as attorney general of his state of Missouri, during which time
he was elected by his peers, the 50 state attorneys general, Democrats
and Republicans, to become the president of the National Association of
Attorneys General. Then he was twice elected governor of Missouri, and
again elected by his peers, the 50 state governors, to head the
National Governors Association. And then he was elected by Missourians
to serve with us here in the United States Senate, where we all came to
respect him for his work ethic and his integrity.
As a matter of fact, I don't know of one Senator in the whole United
States Senate who would disagree with the statement that this is an
honorable man of integrity. When he says he'll do something, he'll do
it. I don't know anybody, who, knowing his record and his life, who
would conclude that John Ashcroft is anything but one of the finest
people they've every met.
But during this process, I think that we have seen some attempts here
to undermine a truly good man. Some things have been done throughout
this process that were outside the bounds of policy debate, beyond what
is decent and right. In the zeal to take a political stand against this
nominee for whatever reason, I believe there have been numerous
charges, innuendos, and distortions that were neither fair nor
accurate. I have tried to help rebut these charges, but they ought not
to have been made.
Despite these attacks, I do not believe this good man, this man of
deep faith and conviction, will take offense or hold grudges. I believe
he will do what he has promised to do. He will be inclusive,
forthright, and he will follow the law. He will be an Attorney General
for all the people and be an Attorney General of whom we can all be
proud. I know he will because I know John Ashcroft, as most of us do. I
know he is well-prepared. And I know when he promises to discharge his
duties faithfully, to uphold the law and Constitution, enlisting the
help and witness of God to do so, he means it, and he will do it.
I look forward to working with him to help make our nation safer,
more just, and more in line with our founding principles, embodied in
our Constitution. His job is largely about making our nation more safe
and free. I am glad we will have an Attorney General who will work
toward that goal.
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. LOTT. 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. LOTT. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Have the yeas and
nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not been ordered.
Mr. LOTT. I ask for the yeas and nays on this vote after my closing
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. LOTT. One other inquiry: Has all time been used except for the
time reserved for the majority leader?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I want to begin by assuring all of my
colleagues that I will not use the entire 15 minutes, so we can begin
the vote hopefully 5 or 10 minutes early. Senators need to be aware of
that so they can come and begin the vote within the next 10 minutes.
Mr. President, this nomination has not been an easy one for the
Senate Judiciary Committee or the Senate to deal with without some
difficulty. You can argue about why that is. But we have come to it,
and now we are ready to vote.
Only nine times in our history has the Senate defeated one of the
President's nominees for his Cabinet and only once since 1959. When I
was a new Senator in 1989, I observed what I thought was a terrible
miscarriage of justice against former Senator John Tower. John Tower
should have been Secretary of Defense. I was really disappointed in how
he was savaged and how some of his colleagues in this body treated him.
Only one time in 40 years have we not confirmed the President's
nomination for a Cabinet position, and that, I am convinced, was a
terrible mistake.
Today we will confirm former Senator John Ashcroft to be Attorney
General. That is as it should be.
I have been disappointed by this nomination's process through the
Judiciary Committee, and to a degree here, although less so on the
floor of the Senate. I thought the rhetoric got too hot. It did get
into the range of being unfair. But I don't think we should let that
permanently alter the atmosphere we have tried to set in the Senate.
I have tried to get through some items that would allow us to move
forward in a positive vein.
I think congratulations also would be in order, and certainly a word
of appreciation for the leadership on the Democratic side of the aisle.
Senator Daschle has tried to help get us through this nomination. He
made it clear that he would not participate in a filibuster. I do not
recall in the 30- something years I have been watching the Senate very
closely a Cabinet nomination being filibustered. It would be a terrible
precedent. He spoke out, saying he wouldn't do it, that he wouldn't
support it. To those who said we shouldn't have a filibuster, I say
thank you for that.
There will be those who will speak out about what this vote means, if
it is not 60 votes, or if it is 69 over 61, or whatever it may be. I
think that will be a futile waste of time. I don't think we should read
anything into it. This nominee is going to be confirmed, and he should
be. The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is entitled to
have his selection to be Attorney General.

I want to say also that I know John Ashcroft. I know him as a man. I
knew him as a Senator. I knew him as a close personal friend, and I
knew him as a member of the Singing Senators as we sang all across this
country together. I have been in his home. I know his wife. I know his
children. I know his constituents. I have been all over Missouri. He
has been in my home. He knows my friends, and we have been together in
many instances. I don't know this person who has been described in some
of the debate; some of these allegations about things he did, or didn't
do, or whether or not he is a man of his word. I do not know that
person. I

[[Page S1008]]

know John Ashcroft. I know the man who served in this Chamber. I know
his abilities, his education, and his qualifications. I don't think
there has ever been a more qualified person by background, education,
and experience to be Attorney General than John Ashcroft.
I remember 8 years ago, when I voted to confirm the previous Attorney
General, thinking that this nominee was not qualified, and I think she
proved it. But I voted for her because I thought President Clinton was
entitled to his nominee at that point.
So we have a man who is qualified. But it is more than that. John
Ashcroft is a good man of high veracity and who will keep his word.
Senator Byrd said yesterday, I believe, in his speech that he has
made a commitment he is going to uphold the law. What more should we
want: A pound of flesh?
I realize this is all about other things. That is OK. But it is
unfair to this man.
Maybe the ravens will be heard never more. But forevermore you can
quote me on this and remind me on this. John Ashcroft will go on to be
one of the best Attorneys General we have ever had. He will be
conscientious. He will show capability. He will be sensitive. He will
be honest. He will enforce the laws--some laws that have been ignored
the last 8 years--and maybe there are some people who are a little
nervous about that. But, as we say in all kinds of different circles in
America, I am here to vouch for their man. I vouch for John Ashcroft. I
will stand by him. And you mark my words, he will go on to be a great
and valuable Attorney General.
So let's move on. Let's work together, as I know we can do.
I accept the olive branch extended by Senator Russ Feingold. That is
what he said. I extend the olive branch to show a willingness to work
together and reach across the aisle and across all the other things
that could divide us. He showed courage. I will not forget it. In fact,
I think I maybe didn't forget it in advance because we have already
worked out an agreement on how we are going to bring up a bill about
which he cares a lot.
But that was an important statement on his part. I accept it. We
accept it. That is the way we should proceed.
This new President has changed the tone in this city. Absolutely,
people are astounded by his willingness to reach out and to listen and
to be heard. He is meeting with everybody. He has even seen motion
pictures with them. So he is doing his part. Let us make sure the
Senate does its part.
Vote for John Ashcroft. You won't regret it. Then let's move on to
important legislation. Let's argue about ideas. Let's argue about how
to make education better. Let's argue about how to give tax relief--
``return to sender,'' as the Senator from Georgia said. That is what
the people want us to talk about. They want to get this vicious and
partisan stuff behind us and deal with real issues. I don't think
insurmountable damage has been done. I believe we can build on the
other things we have done in the last month.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Does the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of John Ashcroft of Missouri to be Attorney
General of the United States? The yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 58, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 8 Ex.]

YEAS--58

Allard
Allen
Bennett
Bond
Breaux
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Byrd
Campbell
Chafee
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Helms
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Jeffords
Kyl
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Miller
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Roberts
Santorum
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner

NAYS--42

Akaka
Baucus
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Cleland
Clinton
Corzine
Daschle
Dayton
Durbin
Edwards
Feinstein
Graham
Harkin
Hollings
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Landrieu
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Sarbanes
Schumer
Stabenow
Torricelli
Wellstone
Wyden
The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In my capacity as a Senator from the State of
Illinois, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to reconsider be laid
upon the table and the President be immediately notified that the
Senate has given consent to this nomination, and the Senate then resume
legislative session.
Without objection, it is so ordered.

____________________