Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Of course.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, let me point to just a few instances of these amazing attacks on Senator Ashcroft, made on largely religious grounds, since he was nominated. In fairness to my colleagues in the Senate, they have tried to draw a distinction between the liberal pressure groups' attacks on Senator Ashcroft's religious views and my colleagues' questioning into his ``values'' or ``beliefs.'' But their wholesale adoption of the rest of the liberal interest group critique of John Ashcroft does suggest a connection between the objections, despite a generally more guarded rhetoric. However, I was disappointed that just this morning one of our colleagues was quoted in The New York Times as saying, ``he believed Mr. Ashcroft's `fundamental beliefs and values' would conflict with the attorney general's responsibility to enforce the law.'' NY Times, Feb. 1, 2001. Let me turn to the testimony of Professor James M. Dunn, who testified at our Senate hearings as an expert on religion issues. I begin here because Professor Dunn is the most explicit in his religious attack on Senator Ashcroft. Most attacks have been based on the divergence of his religious beliefs and a particular law, such as abortion rights, or a suggestion that the strength of his deeply-held convictions will make it impossible for him to analyze the law dispassionately and apply it even-handedly. Professor Dunn makes his attack explicitly on religious grounds. On a personal note, I am deeply disappointed that a Divinity Professor, who has worked on important religious liberty legislation with me and other people of conscience and people of faith, would use such harsh and intemperate language to attack a person of good faith, apparently over a policy difference. Professor Dunn says explicitly what others have coyly and carefully implied. He says, and I quote what is essentially the thesis statement of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: ``The long history of Senator Ashcroft's identification with and approval of the political agenda of religious, right-wing extremism in this country convinces me that he is utterly unqualified and must be assumed to be unreliable for such a trust.'' Let me quote that point again: ``The long history of Senator Ashcroft's identification with and approval of . . . religious, right- wing extremism in this country convinces [Professor Dunn] that he is utterly unqualified and must be assumed unreliable for such a trust.'' That is about as baldly as the matter can be put, John Ashcroft is ``utterly unqualified'' and ``unreliable'' because of his ``religious, right-wing extremism.'' As if the name-calling were not enough, to make this an even more stunning assertion, the case Professor Dunn offers to prove this perceived ``extremism'' is that John Ashcroft was the ``principal architect'' of the so-called ``charitable choice'' legislation which was passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. To suggest that duly passed legislation, adopted by two branches of government controlled by different political parties is outside the mainstream is simply ludicrous, and suggests that the one outside the mainstream is not Senator Ashcroft, but rather his critics. This is a point that could be made on a number of policy fronts. This critique is particularly odd when both major-party presidential candidates have been talking up the concept of charitable choice very recently in their campaigns. I am disappointed when policy disagreements deteriorate into name- calling, but considering the source I am particularly disappointed. I would hope that the United States Senate would never countenance such attacks in the consideration of this, or any other, nominee. I hope no weight will be given to such intemperate vitriol, nor more guarded attacks made in the same spirit. I hope that none of my colleagues would join in such attacks, whether explicitly stated or couched in more careful language. I am glad that at least Professor Dunn's clear statement can put to rest the question of whether Senator Ashcroft is being attacked in part on his religious beliefs. Dunn is not alone, either. For example, Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in attacking Senator Ashcroft's nomination also cites charitable choice-- again, a law adopted by two branches of government controlled by two different parties--as an instance of Ashcroft's ``extreme views.'' And to underscore the broader point, Lynn points to the apparently decisive fact that ``Religious Right leaders find Ashcroft's fundamentalist Christian world view and his far-right political outlook appealing.'' Let us be clear here: the charge is guilt by association with religious people. As a number of my colleagues have suggested that the nominee might want to apologize for some of his associations or take the opportunity to dissociate himself from them, I would invite my colleagues to show a similar indignation for these attacks on people of faith, and dissociate themselves from these intolerant statements, unless they too would like their silence to be considered approval of such intolerance. Perhaps there needs to be greater sensitivity shown here. In addition to such explicit attacks, others attack Senator Ashcroft because his religious beliefs can be viewed as diverging from the legal results favored by far left liberal interest groups. For example, in the area of abortion, Ms. Gloria Feldt, the President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America criticized Senator Ashcroft for ``his belief that personhood begins at fertilization,'' saying ``his actions and statements over time with regard to choice and family planning represent no mere commentary on policy decisions of the day, but rather illustrate deeply held beliefs that put him at odds with the overwhelming majority of Americans.'' She went on to argue that his view is ``one of the most extreme positions among those who oppose a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, John Ashcroft actually believes that personhood begins . . . at the moment that sperm meets egg, the moment of fertilization.'' Well, call it extreme if you will--that word is a hobby horse of the far left liberal groups who oppose this nominee--but I understand that is the position of a number of churches, including the Catholic church. What is striking and chilling about this attack is the implication that anyone who holds this belief, including believing members of many churches, including the millions of believing Catholics, are unfit for the office of Attorney General because of their ``extreme positions.'' Surely, the Senate cannot take the position that faithful Americans who adhere to the pro-life doctrines of their churches, or even those who are pro- life on secular grounds, are unfit for office because of this view. Where all of this leads is down one of two roads. Either the political views of about half of the country--including a duly elected pro-life President--make one unfit for office, which clearly cannot be right in a democracy. Or religious people who actually believe their religions are unfit for public office, which clearly cannot be right in a tolerant and pluralistic society founded in part on religious freedom. Or there is a third path. That path is the one John Ashcroft's opponents have added most recently to counter his assurances that he will follow the law, even where he disagrees with it. That path is to try to brand as a liar a person who, while disagreeing on policy, promises to honor the law as the policy-makers have made it. This path attacks the very notion of dispassionate analysis and even-handed application of the law. Besides undermining our basic assumptions supporting the rule of law, this position raises two additional objections. First, it unfairly puts the nominee in a lose-lose position where he cannot ever win the argument because if he disagrees with his opponents on policy he is branded a dangerous extremist, but if he disarms the policy dispute by acknowledging his role as enforcer of policy made by others, his veracity is called into question. There seems to be no way to satisfy these critics without violating the oath to uphold the law; they seem to want a promise that he will make up new liberal law in his enforcement position. Besides being little more than a desperate attempt to justify opposition under any circumstances, this path leads to a second, and more chilling result for religious tolerance, namely that of Senator's judging a nominee on the basis of their views of the nominee's religious faith and that faith's priorities. John Ashcroft responds to those who criticize him for his beliefs about abortion and the beginning of life, for example, by stating that his religion requires him to follow the law as written when he is filling an enforcement role, and his oath to do that will be binding on him. Those who challenge his veracity on this point are picking and choosing which of Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs they feel are genuine or which religious principle has priority for him. I think this moves dangerously close to the line of imposing a religious test on a nominee. Oddly, to justify questions approaching this line, one Judiciary Committee member suggested that is was perfectly appropriate to inquire whether a Quaker could faithfully discharge the office of Secretary of Defense. I am not sure we should be so blithely assured that it is appropriate to inquire about a nominee's religious beliefs and then judge that nominee based on what we think their religion requires of them. That robs the individual conscience of its freedom and robs the executive of the choice of cabinet team based on a Senator's own projection of what a nominee's religious code ought to be. Perhaps we can ask a nominee the general question whether there is anything that would keep them from fulfilling their duties, but I do not think it appropriate to assume that someone is unfit for a job because we have preconceptions about what their sect believes and then criticize them if their answers do not fit our preconceptions of what they should believe. We need to tread very carefully here. We would do well in such matters to give the benefit of the doubt to the nominee. We have certainly given the benefit of the doubt to the last president when we had qualms about the quality or credentials of some of his nominees, or their policy positions. But we owe a special duty to resolve doubts in favor of a nominee when questions stem from our assumptions about a nominee's religious beliefs, especially in the face of the nominee's contradiction of our assumptions. Mr. President, I think we would all do well to remember what we know about John Ashcroft, and not be influenced by a caricature painted by those extreme groups whose distortions of this honorable man are driven largely by their own narrow political interests. We know him to be a man of integrity, a man of his word. A man who reveres American constitutionalism, democracy, pluralism, and equality before the law. We know John Ashcroft is the sort of person whose word is his bond. And if his religion is relevant, it speaks for him as a person who will discharge the office of Attorney General with honor and dignity, with impartiality, according to the law established by the constitutional process he reveres. I think if we examine our hearts, we will find nothing that disqualifies him to be Attorney General. And we cannot, in good conscience, say that all those Americans who believe as he does are outside the mainstream of American opinion. No, they are solidly within the history of American pluralism and freedom, including religious freedom. We know John Ashcroft will faithfully discharge his duties and honor his oath of office, sworn as he points out ``so help [him] God.'' And we know this no matter what the liberal pressure groups assert. I hope we will similarly honor our oaths, rejecting what has become in essence a religious test for this nominee, and vote to confirm this honorable man to the post of Attorney General. My colleague Senator Kennedy suggests that to oppose court-ordered busing makes a person against integration. But nothing could be farther from the truth. I think most people highly abhor racial segregation. However, the remedy for such segregation is extremely controversial. Mr. Bob Woodson testified that a significant majority of African- Americans opposes busing for integration. And it is no wonder, given that many of these programs have been a dismal failure. They may have moved some children out of city schools, but they have done little to improve inner-city schools. I would like to address several allegations that continue to be made relating to Senator Ashcroft's involvement with school desegregation cases in Missouri. First, let me say that I do not in the least condone segregation in St. Louis or Kansas City or anywhere else. It is a shameful legacy that must be dealt with appropriately. Second, while the costs of the desegregation program were exorbitant, this is not the only criticism to be made of the plans. The primary argument repeatedly made by Senator Ashcroft is that the State was never found liable for an inter-district violation. Senator Kennedy has referred to an 8th Circuit decision that he argues found the State of Missouri guilty of an inter-district violation. But a circuit court cannot make such a factual finding. Rather, this is a finding that must be made only by a trial court. The fact that the State was never found liable for an inter-district violation is shown by the fact that throughout 1981 and 1982, the parties were preparing for trial on the very question of inter-district liability. So again, I emphasize that it is true and correct to say that the State was never found liable for an inter-district violation. Although the State was not found liable for an inter-district violation, it was required by the district court to pay for a settlement reached by the suburbs and the City of St. Louis. This order by the district court was likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Milliken. Opposing these court orders for a plan that was constitutionally suspect, expensive, and ineffective, does not make Senator Ashcroft an opponent of desegregation. Indeed, the plan as implemented has been a dismal failure. Test scores actually declined from 1990 to 1995. Scores on the standard achievement test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at a time when the national mean was 50. And the graduation rate has remained at a dismal 30 percent. To question Senator Ashcroft's integrity over such a complicated and controversial issue is to seriously distort his record and disbelieve his sworn testimony. Senator Ashcroft acted with great probity as a representative of the State of Missouri. He supports integration and deplores racism. As one who feels very strongly about drug issues, I am pleased to say I have been working with Senator Leahy on legislation dealing with drug treatment and prevention, and we are going to get that done this year. I feel compelled to respond to some of the criticism launched at Senator Ashcroft yesterday regarding his stance on drug treatment. Some have questioned Senator Ashcroft's dedication to investing in drug prevention and treatment programs in the battle against drug abuse and addiction. Indeed, yesterday when giving a statement in opposition to Senator Ashcroft, one Senator suggested that Senator Ashcroft opposed investing in drug treatment. That simply is not true. Senator Ashcroft's record in the Senate proves that he placed a lot of faith in drug prevention and treatment. He has always believed, as do many of us, that America's drug problems can only be conquered through a comprehensive, balanced approach consisting of interdiction and law enforcement efforts as well as prevention and treatment. It is true that in 1998, Senator Ashcroft called on the Clinton administration to continue the ban on federal funding for clean-needle programs, stating ``the nation's leaders have a fundamental responsibility to call Americans to their highest and best.'' Providing clean needles to drug addicts, Senator Ashcroft reasoned, was analogous to ``giving bullet proof vests to bank robbers.'' He argued that such a policy would ``hurt kids, tear apart families, and damage the culture.'' Senator Ashcroft went on to state that providing needles to addicts ``is accommodating us at our lowest and least.'' In light of the fact that heroin use among eighth graders had doubled and that marijuana use was up 99 percent at the time when the Clinton administration was considering lifting the ban on federal funding for needle exchange programs, Senator Ashcroft concluded that ``America deserve[d] better,'' and that its leaders needed to set ``a higher standard than providing clean needles for drug users.'' Some have mischaracterized Senator Ashcroft's record on drug treatment. I have complete confidence in saying that the majority of Americans agree with Senator Ashcroft. Providing drug addicts with clean needles is not the most effective drug prevention or treatment. Just last session, Senator Ashcroft authored and introduced S. 486, a comprehensive bill that attacked the methamphetamine problem on several fronts, including the prevention and treatment fronts. S 486 was a balanced drug bill that contained significant and innovative prevention and treatment provisions. For example, the bill: (1) Expanded the National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network which conducts research and clinical trials with treatment centers relating to drug abuse and addiction and other biomedical, behavioral and social issues related to drug abuse and addiction; (2) authorized $10 million in grants to States for treatment of methamphetamine and amphetamine addiction; (3) authorized $15 million to fund grants to public and nonprofit private entities to carry out school-based and community- based programs concerning the dangers of abuse of and addiction to methamphetamine and other illicit drugs; and (4) required HHS to conduct a study on the development of medications for the treatment of addiction to amphetamine and methamphetamine. Another important treatment provision, included in S. 486, offered an innovative approach to how drug addicted patients could seek and obtain treatment by creating a decentralized system of treating heroin addicts with a new generation of antiaddiction medications. This provision, which was added to S. 486 and was fully supported by Senator Ashcroft, was taken from a bill introduced by myself and Senators Levin and Biden. I am sure Senator Levin would agree that Senator Ashcroft's sponsorship and support for this very provision, not to mention the countless other provisions included in the bill, demonstrate this commitment to utilizing and funding effective prevention and treatment programs in the fight against illicit drug abuse and addiction. Senator Ashcroft's record proves he believes in prevention and treatment programs and his views on one particular, and I must say controversial, form of a treatment program. There are so many things I could bring up that have been distortions, misrepresentations, and downright falsehoods stated on this floor and in our committee about Senator Ashcroft--especially by outside groups. The sheer volume is mind-boggling to me. I recall the Golden Rule of ``do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'' I wonder how many people would like to be treated like Senator Ashcroft has been treated by some of our colleagues here and some of these outside groups, distorting his record, trying to make him look bad--all in the good name of politics. I think it is wrong. Buddhists say it another way. Buddhists say, ``Do as you would be done by.'' It is very similar. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. How many of us would like to be treated like this? Here is a man who was elected attorney general of his State, who did his best to do that job, who enforced laws he didn't agree with. And he has a record that can be shown. He was selected by his peers--the other 49 attorneys general of the United States of America--to head the National Attorneys General Association. And we have people here saying he should not be Attorney General of the United States. You don't get elected by 49 other state attorneys general--Democrats and Republicans--unless you are a quality person. What is more, he became Governor of the great State of Missouri for 8 years. As Governor of the State of Missouri, he also became the head of the National Governors' Association elected by the other 49 Governors. I submit that you don't get elected chairman of the National Governors' Association unless you are a quality individual, of great substance, fair and decent, and you surely would not get elected if you were against desegregation. There is no way. Then he served 6 years in this Senate and I have never heard one person in this body say that he is not a man of integrity, decency, and honor. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I have never seen treatment like this of a worthy colleague. I have never seen treatment like this of somebody who has spent a lifetime living his beliefs and doing what is right. Of the 69 Attorneys General of the United States, John Ashcroft has more qualifications than all but a handful; some say more qualifications than any one who has been Attorneys General. I will not go that far. But there is only a handful that have at least some of the qualifications that John Ashcroft has. Think of what Senator Ashcroft's critics are doing to the State of Missouri in the arguments that have been made here. Why, you would all have to imply that the people of Missouri just have no brains to elect somebody as vicious, as violent, and as awful as John Ashcroft, when it is completely the other way. I commend the people of Missouri for having the brains to have somebody of that quality serve them as attorney general, Governor, and Senator. Look at the way he handled his defeat--with decency; much more than has been shown to him--consideration, and kindness. And we are happy to welcome our new colleague from Missouri because of John Ashcroft's gracious concession and because she is a great person to boot. But Senator Ashcroft could have contested the election. The loss of a Senate race has to be personal. There are other legal aspects as well, it could be argued. But he didn't. He did not do what others are doing to him. When I see these outside groups, I welcome them because it is the first time we have seen them in 8 years. Isn't that interesting? They seem to react and get into action only when there is a Republican President. I wonder why that is the case. I respect their right to advocate. I respect their point of view even though I don't agree with many of them. I respect their right to come in and state that point of view. But I resent the way they have done it. I resent the way they have picked on John Ashcroft. I resent the unfair tactics. I resent the distortions of his record. Boy, it has been distorted. I think we all resent it. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Isn't it amazing that only during Republican Presidencies we have all these groups coming out of the woodwork? I guess they can say it is because Republicans don't agree with them. That is what makes this country great. We don't all have to agree. Let me put it bluntly. Is it getting to the point where only pro- choice people can serve in as Attorney General of the United States? Do we have a litmus test that says that we have to reject highly qualified individuals who believe otherwise, but who will enforce the law as it exists? Is that where we are going in this country? Or are we going to continue to distort his record on guns? John Ashcroft has a sterling record on getting tough with criminals who use guns. That is the way to end the misuse of guns in this society--get tough on those who misuse them. There would be a lot less crime. But no, if we don't agree with certain anti-gun groups and we just ignore the history of the second amendment completely, we are not worthy of being Attorney General. To have his record distorted when he has been a forthright, strong proponent of tough anticrime laws against those who misuse guns, it is a disgrace. Desegregation: Sometimes in the law we can differ and have a good case and we might lose. But that doesn't mean the case wasn't good. If you look at the record of court-ordered desegregation in St. Louis and Kansas City, it didn't work. The people hurt the worst were the people in the inner cities of St. Louis and Kansas City. It cost $1.8 billion, which John thought was a raid on the State treasury. The State was never found liable for interdistrict segregation. Those are important points. I want Members to think about it. Why would anybody in this body say some of the things that have been said about John Ashcroft? Is it because they want to make John Ashcroft the new Newt Gingrich so they can raise funds for reelection? I certainly hope not. But there are some who believe that. I am not sure it is not true. Is it because they are sending a message that no conservative who believes in the right to life should ever be Attorney General? Or even more, should never be on the circuit courts or supreme court of this land? Is that what we are doing? I believe some are doing it for that reason. I know some of the outside groups are doing it for that reason. I know they are trying to get as many votes against John Ashcroft so they can claim a victory, even though John Ashcroft is going to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I guess they want to undermine him from day 1. They got the wrong guy. This is a fellow who will do what he thinks is right, and by and large will be right. Everybody in this body admits he would be a great law enforcement Attorney General. The fact is, they know he is tough on crime. After all, that is one of the things we are all worried about. People are scared to death in this land today because we have allowed drugs to pervade the land. We have allowed criminality to pervade the land. We haven't been as tough as we should be. We have illicit use of guns in this land because we are not enforcing the laws. Instead of going after those who misuse the guns, they have been complaining about guns themselves. I would rather attack the problem in a responsible and intelligent way. Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I hope we don't have another nominee that goes through this, a person of decency and honor. I hope whether he or she is a Democrat or Republican, they will have a little more class than we have had displayed in this matter. I hope my colleagues on the other side will vote for John Ashcroft because it is the right thing to do. We should never get into these name-calling contests and distort people's records, especially someone of the quality of John Ashcroft, and a colleague at that. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in strong support of President Bush's nominee for Attorney General, our former colleague, John Ashcroft. Senator Ashcroft will be one of the most qualified Attorney Generals in our history. Unfortunately, he has also been the target of one of the most vicious and unrelenting smear campaigns in our history, and it is with that in mind that I feel compelled to set the record straight and describe at length, the real facts and the real qualifications of someone I think this country will be very fortunate to have serve as our Attorney General. Mr. President, much of the debate over the nomination of John Ashcroft has focused on issues tangential to the core mission of the Department of Justice. The Senate would be well-served to consider the Ashcroft nomination in light of the duties of the Attorney General. When this debate is placed in the proper perspective, it becomes even more obvious how qualified Senator Ashcroft is to be the next Attorney General of the United States. The Department of Justice was established by Congress in 1870. It is the largest law firm in the United States, with 123,000 employees and an annual budget of approximately $21 billion. Through its thousands of lawyers, agents, and investigators, the Justice Department plays a vital role in fighting violent crime and drug trafficking, ensuring business competition in the marketplace, enforcing immigration and naturalization laws, and protecting our environment. Consider the following major components of the Justice Department in light of the qualifications of Senator Ashcroft: The Civil Rights Division was established in 1957 to secure the effective enforcement of civil rights for all Americans. Attorneys in the Civil Rights Division enforce federal statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, religion, and national origin. In order to enforce these landmark laws, the Civil Rights Division engages in a variety of litigation to fight discrimination in employment, housing and immigration. In particular, the litigation brought by the Civil Rights Division under the Voting Rights Act has had a profound influence on the electoral landscape in the last three decades. As Senator Ashcroft emphatically stated at his confirmation hearing: ``No part of the Department of Justice is more important than the Civil Rights Division.'' Senator Ashcroft's record proves that he believes in the mission of the Civil Rights Division. He vigorously enforced civil rights laws as the Attorney General and Governor of Missouri. He signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute. Not content to wait for the legislature to act, John Ashcroft made Missouri one of the first States to recognize Martin Luther King Day by issuing an executive order. He also led the fight to save Lincoln University, the Missouri university founded by African-American Civil War veterans. Furthermore, as the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft held the first hearing on racial profiling in the history of Congress. When asked at his confirmation hearing about his priorities for the Justice Department, Senator Ashcroft cited the abolition of racial profiling as one of his top two priorities. I ask my colleagues to look to Senator Ashcroft's record and ignore the propaganda generated by extremist lobbying groups. Under attorney General Ashcroft, the Civil Rights Division will be in good hands. Senator Ashcroft stated at his confirmation hearing that the paramount civil right is personal safety. The Attorney General is America's chief law enforcement officer, and managing the Criminal Division is the most important aspect of the Attorney General's duties. The Criminal Division oversees thousands of federal agents and is charged with, among other things, investigating and prosecuting drug dealers, illegal gun traffickers, bank robbers, child pornographers, computer hackers, and terrorists. The Criminal Division has a visible and tangible effect on the lives of all Americans. I have no doubt that, given his extensive experience as a public servant, Senator Ashcroft understands and appreciates the mission of the Criminal Division. Throughout his long career as Missouri Attorney General, Missouri Governor, and United States Senator, Senator Ashcroft has been a strong advocate of tough and effective criminal law enforcement. Perhaps the greatest threat facing our nation today is the scourge of illegal drugs. For years, Senator Ashcroft has been a leader in the fight against illegal drugs. In 1996, Senator Ashcroft helped enact the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act, which increased penalties for the manufacture and trafficking of methamphetamine. Senator Ashcroft also helped enact federal laws that increased mandatory minimum sentences for methamphetamine offenses and authorized courts to order persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses to pay for the costs of laboratory cleanup. Last year, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to target additional resources to local law enforcement agencies to fight methamphetamine. Senator Ashcroft also understands that drug treatment and prevention are vital components of an effective drug strategy. In last year's methamphetamine legislation, Senator Ashcroft included funding for drug education and prevention programs, including resources for school-based anti-methamphetamine initiatives. As Attorney General and Governor of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft increased funding for anti-drug programs by almost 40%, the vast majority of which was for education, prevention and treatment. Senator Ashcroft has also made clear that prosecuting gun crimes will be a top priority of the Ashcroft Justice Department. Unfortunately, gun prosecutions have not always been a priority for the Department of Justice. For example, between 1992 and 1998, prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800. In the Senate, John Ashcroft was one of the leaders in fighting gun crimes. To reverse the decline in gun prosecutions by the Justice Department, Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional federal prosecutors and agents to increase the federal prosecution of criminals who use guns. In addition, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Ashcroft juvenile assault weapons ban in May of 1999. Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation that prohibits any person convicted of even misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, and he voted for legislation to extend the Brady Act to prohibit persons who commit violent crimes as juveniles from possessing firearms. In order to close the so-called ``gun show loophole,'' Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation, which I authored, to require mandatory instant background checks for all firearm purchases at gun shows. In order to maintain tough federal penalties, Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to require a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for federal gun crimes and for legislation to encourage schools to expel students who bring guns to school. Senator Ashcroft voted for the ``Gun-Free Schools Zone Act'' that prohibits the possession of a firearm in a school zone, and he voted for legislation to require gun dealers to offer child safety locks and other gun safety devices for sale. I have no doubt that with John Ashcroft as Attorney General, the Justice Department will target and prosecute gun crimes with unprecedented zeal. To his credit, Senator Ashcroft understands that the vast majority of criminal law enforcement takes place at the state and local level. Given his tenure as Missouri Attorney General and Governor, Senator Ashcroft appreciates the important role that the federal government can play in supporting state and local authorities by providing resources and training. He also understands that the Justice Department should provide such support without intruding into traditional areas of state sovereignty. In the Senate, Senator Ashcroft steadfastly supported state and local law enforcement. He won enactment of a bill that extends higher education financial assistance to spouses and dependent children of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. He was the principal proponent of the ``Care for Police Survivors Act,'' a measure that increases benefits to the survivors of public safety officers killed in the line of duty. Along with Senator Biden, Senator Ashcroft co- sponsored legislation to reauthorize the COPS program. In addition, Senator Ashcroft cosponsored the ``Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 1995.'' This act allocated $1 billion to state and local law enforcement to update and computerize criminal records, automated fingerprint systems, and DNA identification operations. John Ashcroft also cosponsored the ``21st Century Justice Act'' which included Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants. These grants have provided federal resources to States to build prisons to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders. Given his record, it is no surprise that law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations are united in their support for Senator Ashcroft's nomination. The Civil Division represents the United States government, including executive departments and agencies, in civil litigation. First and foremost, the Civil Division defends the constitutionality of federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders. The Civil Division also litigates complex commercial cases. This litigation is especially important for property rights because the Civil Division represents the federal government against claims that private property was taken for public use without just compensation. In addition, the Civil Division represents the federal government in consumer litigation under various consumer protection and public health statutes. Senator Ashcroft's experience as the Attorney General of Missouri prepared him well to oversee the Civil Division. John Ashcroft established the Consumer Affairs Division in the Missouri Attorney General's office. He brought many consumer protection actions, including odometer tampering cases and financial pyramid schemes. In Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the right of state attorneys general to conduct antitrust investigations. In the Senate, John Ashcroft helped enact legislation to combat telemarketing scams against senior citizens. As Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft defended the constitutionality of state laws. In 1993, he personally argued a case before the United States Supreme Court in defense of the constitutionality of a Missouri statute. Few nominees for Attorney General have been so qualified to oversee the Civil Division. Created in 1909, the Environment and Natural Resources Division is the Nation's chief environmental lawyer. It is responsible for litigating cases ranging from the protection of endangered species to the clean-up of hazardous waste sites. In addition to prosecuting environmental crimes, the Environment and Natural Resources Division ensures that federal environmental laws are implemented in a fair and consistent manner. As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft aggressively enforced that state's environmental protection laws. To cite but a few examples, Attorney General Ashcroft brought suit to prevent an electric company from causing oxygen levels in downstream waters to harm fish. He also sought to recover damages from the electric company. Attorney General Ashcroft brought a successful action against the owner of an apartment complex for violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law relating to treatment of waste water, and he sued the owner of a trailer park for violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law. As Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft also filed numerous briefs in the United States Supreme Court that advanced environmental protections. For example: In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief supporting a California law that conditioned the construction of nuclear power plants on findings that adequate storage and disposal facilities are available. In Sporhase v. Nebraska, Attorney General Ashcroft endorsed the State of Nebraska's effort to stop defendants from transporting Nebraska groundwater into Colorado without a permit. In Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief supporting the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on tougher environmental regulations relating to storage of nuclear wastes. As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft issued numerous legal opinions that furthered the enforcement of environmental laws. I would like to describe a few of these formal opinions. In Attorney General Opinion No. 123-84, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that underground injection wells constitute pollution of the waters of the state and are subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources under the state's Clean Water Act. Attorney General Ashcroft also opined that it would be unlawful to build or operate such a well unless a permit had been obtained from the Clean Water Commission. In Attorney General Opinion No. 67, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that operators of surface mines must obtain a permit for each year that the mine was un-reclaimed. In reaching this opinion, Attorney General Ashcroft determined that the operator of the mine must have a permit continuously from the time mining operations begin until reclamation of the site is complete. Attorney General Ashcroft concluded that the continuous permit requirement facilitated Missouri's intention ``to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of this state, and to protect the natural resources of the state from environmental harm.'' In Attorney General Opinion No. 189, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that Missouri's cities and counties had the authority to require that all solid waste be disposed of at approved solid waste recovery facilities, rather than be buried in landfills. In rendering his opinion, Attorney General Ashcroft gave credence to the arguments that ``recycling of solid wastes results in fewer health hazards and pollution problems than does disposal of the same types of wastes in landfills'' and that ``public welfare is better served by burning solid wastes for generation of electricity, thus conserving scarce natural resources.'' To those who have irresponsibly charged that Senator Ashcroft will not enforce our environmental laws, I say this: Look at his record. Mr. President, there are other offices in the Justice Department that are also very important. In the interest of time, however, I have focused on a select few. My point today is a simple one--when this nomination is considered in light of the mission of the Department of Justice, it becomes apparent how well-qualified John Ashcroft is to be Attorney General. In addition to placing in the record Senator Ashcroft's eminent qualifications, I would also like to correct the record surrounding a number of issues that have been raised by his critics. As Senator Sessions has said, Senator Ashcroft has been called ``divisive'', but that has been a result of a caricature created by extremist lobbying groups who have spared nothing to demonize him. Webster includes in its definition of ``caricature'', ``a likeness or imitation that is that is so distorted or inferior as to seem ludicrous.'' The portrait of John Ashcroft that has been painted by the People For the American Way and other like-motivated people and organizations is ludicrous. They describe a man that I do not recognize as John Ashcroft. Unlike their demonization, the real John Ashcroft has the character and the intelligence to be a great Attorney General. Before addressing some of the unfair attacks leveled against Senator Ashcroft, I should say a word or two on standards. We have heard much discussion about the appropriate standard of ``advise and consent'' that we should apply to the President's Cabinet nominees. Unfortunately, many people, knowing that opposing Senator Ashcroft on ideological grounds would be unprecedented, appear to be manipulating this standard so as to mask their true reasons for opposing this nomination. And those reasons, I must say, are purely ideological. Prodded, and perhaps in some cases even threatened, by assorted left- wing extremist groups, those on the other side appear to oppose Senator Ashcroft simply because he is a conservative. The standard we should use is that which was applied to Attorney General Janet Reno in 1993, and that standard has three parts. First, by longstanding tradition in the Senate, we must afford the President a significant degree of deference to shape his Cabinet as he sees fit. The election is over, President Bush won, and nothing will change that fact. Some have suggested that because the election was close and divisive, we should be less deferential with respect to Cabinet nominees. Yet, I do not recall hearing that suggestion in 1993 after President Clinton won an extremely close and hard-fought election, an election in which he failed to garner a majority of the popular vote. Despite that close election, every Republican in this body deferred to President Clinton and voted for Attorney General Reno. The second prong of our standard focuses on the experience and qualifications of the nominee. No one can seriously contend that Senator Ashcroft lacks the experience and qualifications to serve as Attorney General. Indeed, few in our nation's history have come to the post of Attorney General with the qualifications and experience that Senator Ashcroft brings. In almost thirty years of public service, he has served as a state attorney general, state governor, and United States Senator. While Missouri Attorney General, he was elected by the other state attorneys general to head the National Association of Attorneys General, while Governor of Missouri, his fellow governors elected him chairman of the National Governors' Association, and while a United States Senator, he served four years on the Judiciary Committee. By comparison, Attorney General Reno came to the post as a county prosecutor. Yet, despite concerns about her qualifications, every Republican in this body voted to confirm her. The final prong of our standard requires us to ensure that the nominee possesses the necessary integrity and ethics to serve the American people. Here, Senator Ashcroft is above reproach. He is, by all accounts, a man of absolute honesty and deep religious conviction. I know I speak for many of my colleagues when I say that I knew President Bush had found the right person to enforce the laws of this nation when Senator Ashcroft raised his right hand and said, ``As a man of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously. . . . when I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God.'' Mr. President, as the senior senator from Vermont succinctly stated, albeit when the president was a member of his own party, ``The president should get to pick his own team. Unless the nominee is incompetent or some other major ethical or investigative problem arises . . . then the president gets the benefit of the doubt. There is no doubt about this nominee's qualifications or integrity.'' That is the standard that this Senate has always applied to Cabinet nominees. As others have noted, over the entire history of the Senate, this body has voted to reject only 9 nominations to the President's Cabinet, and only 3 in the 20th Century. In 1993, Republicans applied that traditional standard when we unanimously voted to confirm an attorney general nominee whose views on the death penalty, the Second Amendment, and abortion stood in stark contrast to our own. Unless those on the other side wish to engage in rank hypocrisy, this is the standard we should apply to Senator Ashcroft today. Opponents of Senator Ashcroft have accused him of being unable to set aside his opinions on certain laws sufficiently in order to enforce those laws. What's being proposed is to disqualify from high office anyone who has previously taken a side on a legislative proposal. It is simply not true that a legislator is so tainted by efforts to change laws that thereafter he or she cannot perform the duties of attorney general. Outside this Chamber, and outside of the offices of the left-wing liberal group's offices, Americans understand that people can take on different roles and responsibilities when they are given different positions. Americans know that lawyers can become judges, welders can become foremen, engineers can become managers, and school teachers can become school board leaders. And Americans know that a Senator, whose job is to propose and vote on new laws, can become an Attorney General, whose job is to enforce those laws that are duly passed. There aren't many people who know as much about the different roles in government as John Ashcroft. He has been in the executive branch as Missouri Attorney General for 8 years. He has been chief executive as Missouri's Governor for 8 years. And he has been in the legislative branch as a United States Senator for 6 years. Each of these positions have required an understanding of the differing roles assumed by the three branches of government. It is in this context that John Ashcroft told us what he will do as Attorney General. He said he will enforce the laws as written, and uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This is a concise yet profound statement about the proper role of the Attorney General. And it is more than just a statement, because it is backed up by the unquestioned integrity of John Ashcroft, a man who will do what he says. He will enforce the law as it is written, even in those instances where he would have written it differently. Still, some members of this body are unconvinced. They apparently think that John Ashcroft will not do what he said. Of course they would not call him a liar at least not explicitly, anyway. They are saying that, try as he might, he simply cannot enforce the law because he wants so badly for the law to say something other than what it actually says. Some who have adopted this view are accusing John Ashcroft of changing his views. They accuse him of having a ``confirmation conversion.'' By this they mean that people who take off their legislator's cap, and put on an attorney general's hat, cannot adapt from the role of law writer to law enforcer without being insincere. This is a ludicrous proposition. John Ashcroft has not undergone a confirmation conversion; he has been the victim of an interest group distortion. Members of this body know something that the public may not: There is an unspoken rule that a nominee does not answer questions in public between their nomination and their confirmation hearing. This is done out of respect for the Senate--whose job it is, after all, to listen to the nominee rather than the media. But savvy special interest groups take advantage of this interim time to wage a war of words against nominees they dislike. Many of those words are exaggerated or unsubstantiated attacks. The result can be the fabrication of a false public record. Mr. President, I am asking my fellow Senators to resist the temptation to label it a ``conversion'' when a nominee simply corrects the misperceptions created by special interest groups. I am asking my colleagues to look at John Ashcroft's real record, and at his own words in his confirmation hearings, and in his answers to the voluminous written questions--rather than relying on the press releases of issue advocates. John Ashcroft is committed to enforcing the civil rights of all Americans. He has stated that the Civil Rights Division is the most important division of the Justice Department and that he will make enforcement of civil rights a priority during his tenure as Attorney General. Contrary to the attacks of his critics, Senator Ashcroft has demonstrated his commitment to equality under the law throughout his career. For example, as Governor, he signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute into law. He signed Missouri's Martin Luther King Holiday into law and also signed the law establishing Scott Joplin's house as Missouri's first and only historic site honoring an African- American. John Ashcroft led the fight to save an independent Lincoln University, founded by African-American soldiers. He also established an award emphasizing academic excellence in the name of George Washington Carver, a wonderful intellectual role model for all Missouri students. As Governor, John Ashcroft was presented with 9 panels for judicial appointment that contained minority candidates. In 8 of the 9 instances, Ashcroft appointed a minority candidate to fill the post, and he appointed both of the minority candidates on the 9th panel to judicial positions at a later date. He appointed many African-Americans to Missouri's courts, including David Mason, Jimmy Edwards, Charles Shaw and Michael Calvin, in St. Louis. He also appointed the first African-American judge on the Western Missouri Court of Appeals in Kansas City, Missouri's second highest court. This jurist, Ferdinand Gaitan, now serves on the U.S. District Court for Western Missouri. He continued this leadership in the Senate where he convened the only Senate hearing on Racial Profiling (March 30, 2000) with Senator Feingold. During that hearing, Senator Ashcroft spoke out strongly on the issue stating that ``[U]sing race broadly as profiler in lieu of individualized suspicion is, I believe, an unconstitutional practice.'' He has supported efforts to study the issue and during his hearing testified that as Attorney General, he would continue the studies already underway to examine racial and geographical disparities in death penalty cases. In short, John Ashcroft's record demonstrates his ability to lead a Justice Department of which we can all be proud. John Ashcroft will be committed to enforcing the civil rights laws protecting every American's right to vote and participate in the political process. He has done so throughout his career. Some who oppose Senator Ashcroft have charged that as Governor, John Ashcroft essentially blocked two bills that would have required the City of St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners to deputize private voter registration volunteers. These bills were opposed by both democrats and republicans in St. Louis. It was opposed by the bipartisan St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Tom Villa, and St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach. Tom Villa was a noted Democratic leader, and St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach was a Democrat who was the prosecutor in the St. Louis area. All of these people opposed the legislation. The recommendations of these officials was one of the reasons that John Ashcroft vetoed the bills. It was insinuated during the hearings that these actions were taken out of some kind of partisan or racial motivation, because the City of St. Louis is predominantly black and democratic. But this implication is seriously discredited by the history of voter registration in St. Louis and earlier federal court cases. The city board has a long history of refusing to deputize private voter registration deputies, long before John Ashcroft appointed anyone to that board. Indeed, in 1981 a lawsuit was filed against the members of the St. Louis board concerning the failure to deputize voter registration deputies. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri explicitly rejected charges of racial animus. The court found that the board properly refused to deputize volunteers to prevent fraud and ensure impartiality and administrative efficiency. Moreover, these conclusions were sustained by the 8th Circuit, in an opinion by Judge McMillan, a prominent African-American jurist. Some have also claimed that then-Governor Ashcroft refused to appoint a diverse group of commissioners to the Election Board. This is simply untrue. Mr. Jerry Hunter, the former labor secretary of Missouri, testified that Senator Ashcroft worked hard to increase black representation on the St. Louis City Election Board, but his efforts were stalled by state senators. Mr. Hunter testified that, ``Governor Ashcroft's first black nominee for the St. Louis City Election Board was rejected by the black state senator, because that person did not come out of his organization.'' When then-Governor Ashcroft came up with a second black attorney, this candidate was also rejected by two black state senators. As Mr. Hunter stated, ``[F]rom the beginning, any efforts to make changes in the St. Louis City Election Board were forestalled because the state senators wanted people from their own organization.'' Apparently for these state senators the political spoils system was more important than the voters of St. Louis. Finally, some have implied that these voter registration issues will make Senator Ashcroft less able to deal with allegations of voting improprieties resulting from the Florida vote in the presidential election. Yet Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly testified, ``I will investigate any alleged voting rights violation that has credible evidence. . . . I have no reason not to go forward, and would not refuse go forward for any reason other than a conclusion that there wasn't credible evidence to pursue the case.'' Objective people should have no doubt that Senator Ashcroft will be vigorous in his enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and related statutes. Critics of Senator Ashcroft have also unfairly criticized his testimony about his involvement with the desegregation cases in St. Louis and Kansas City. Senator Ashcroft gave complete and responsive answers to questions about these cases. Any assertions to the contrary distort Senator Ashcroft's responses to a flurry of questions about difficult and complicated cases in which he was involved over a decade ago. The Missouri school desegregation cases are extremely complex and involve a variety of different factual and constitutional issues. Perhaps Senator Ashcroft made some preliminary statements that were incomplete, or not fully clear, but when questioned further, he clarified his answers in an accurate and fair manner. Moreover, in an extended response to a written question, he fully detailed Missouri's liability and involvement with the case. Far from being misleading, Senator Ashcroft's answers get to the heart of the distinctions in the case between inter- and intra-district liability for segregation. Some complain that Senator Ashcroft denied that the state was a party to the lawsuit, however, the initial suit was filed in 1972 and did not make the State a party. Eventually the State was made party to the lawsuit in 1977 and Senator Ashcroft acknowledged this repeatedly in his answers. Second, Senator Ashcroft's critics argue that Senator Ashcroft denied the State's liability. The State was found liable for school segregation in St. Louis, but only for intra-district segregation within the City of St. Louis. The remedy that the district court ordered was inter-district, between St. Louis and its suburbs. The State was never found liable for the inter-district segregation that would justify such a far-ranging remedy involving the suburbs. Then- Attorney General Ashcroft was battling against this inter-district remedy, and it is fully accurate to say that the State was never found liable for inter-district segregation. Third, opponents of Senator Ashcroft unfairly charge that Senator Ashcroft misleadingly stated that he followed all court orders in the desegregation cases. Of course, these opponents cannot say that John Ashcroft did not follow the orders, and must admit that John Ashcroft complied with the terms of the orders. They can only criticize ``his vigorous and repeated appeals.'' These appeals were undertaken in his role as attorney general--as the legal representative of the State John Ashcroft had to consider the State's best interests and raise all reasonable legal appeals, which he did. To make a legal appeal is not to disobey a court order. In fact many court orders were complied with while the appeals were pending. Fourth, the criticisms of Senator Ashcroft's actions strongly and unfairly imply that he was indifferent to the problems of segregation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Senator Ashcroft testified that ``I have always opposed segregation. I have never opposed integration. I believe that segregation is inconsistent with the 14th Amendment's guaranteeing of equal protection. I supported integrating the schools.'' What Senator Ashcroft opposed was court-ordered remedies that we now know to have been wildly expensive and ineffective. Test results have declined, graduation rates have remained at a dismal 30 percent, and the percentage of black students has remained about the same in St. Louis schools. All of this for the price-tag of $1.7 billion. It is hard to see how a person who opposed this plan can be considered against educational equality. The result of court-ordered desegregation in St. Louis is just one example of why, as Bob Woodson testified, a significant majority of African-Americans are against forced busing for integration. John Ashcroft will stand behind the commitments he made during his confirmation and be a staunch defender of the civil rights of all Americans. Senator Ashcroft has demonstrated his commitment to equality through his record as Attorney General, Governor and Senator. Contrary to his critics who have distorted his record on hiring, John Ashcroft has been deeply committed to promoting equal access to government positions during his tenure as both Attorney General and Governor of Missouri. Witnesses testifying at the hearing made this commitment clear. Mr. Jerry Hunter, former labor secretary of Missouri, testified that, ``Like President-elect George W. Bush, Senator Ashcroft followed a policy of affirmative access and inclusiveness during his service to the state of Missouri as attorney general, his two terms as governor, and his one term in the United States Senate. During the eight years that Senator Ashcroft was attorney general for the state of Missouri, he recruited and hired minority lawyers. During his tenure as governor, he appointed blacks to numerous boards and commissions . . . [B]ut I would say to you on a personal note, Senator Ashcroft went out of his way to find African-Americans to consider for appointments.'' Mr. Hunter further elaborated that, ``When Governor Ashcroft's term ended in January of 1993, he had appointed more African-Americans to state court judgeships than any previous governor in the history of the state of Missouri. Governor Ashcroft was also bipartisan in his appointment of state court judges. He appointed Republicans, Democrats and independents. One of Governor Ashcroft's black appointees in St. Louis was appointed, notwithstanding the fact that he was not a Republican and that he was on a panel with a well-known white Republican. Of the nine panels of nominees for state court judgeships, which included at least one African-American, Governor Ashcroft appointed eight black judges from those panels.'' Judge David Mason, who worked with Ashcroft in the Missouri Attorney General's office stated, ``[A]s time went on, I begin to get a real feel for this man and where his heart is. When the subject of Martin Luther King Day came up, I was there. And I recall that he issued the executive order to establish the first King Day, rather than wait for the legislature to do it. Because, as you may recall, some of you, when the Congress passed the holiday, they passed it at a time when the Missouri legislature may not have been able to have the first holiday contemporaneously with it. So he passed a King holiday by executive order. He said, in doing so, he wanted his children to grow up in a state that observed someone like Martin Luther King.'' Bob Woodson of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise uses faith-based organizations to help troubled young people turn their lives around. Mr. Woodson testified: ``Senator John Ashcroft is the only person who, from the time he came into this body, reached out to us. He's on the board of Teen Challenge. He's raised money for them. He sponsored a charitable choice legislation that will stop the government from trying to close them down because they don't have trained professionals as drug counselors. We have an 80 percent success rate of these faith-based organizations with a $60-a-day cost, when the conventional, therapeutically secular program cost $600 a day with a 6 to 10 percent success rate. Senator Ashcroft has gone with us. He has fought with us. And this legislation would help us.'' Mr. Woodsen further stated that ``As a consequence, day before yesterday, 150 black and Hispanic transformed drug addicts got on buses from all over this nation and came here to support him. Fifty of them came from Victory Temple throughout the state of Texas, spent two days on a Greyhound bus at their own expense to come here to voice strong support for Senator Ashcroft.'' Congressman J.C. Watts also testified: ``I've worked with [John Ashcroft] on legislation concerning poor communities, under-served communities. I have always found John Ashcroft to have nothing but the utmost respect and dignity for one's skin color. I heard John say yesterday in some of his testimony that his faith requires him to respect one's skin color. And I think that's the way it should be. [I]n my dealings with John, I have had nothing but the utmost respect for him when it comes to his dealings with people of different skin color.'' These testimonials and Senator Ashcroft's record of hiring and appointments as Missouri Attorney General and Governor demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt that he will be committed to equal opportunity as Attorney General of the United States. Many have expressed concerns about Senator Ashcroft's actions with regard to conducting a telephone interview with a magazine called Southern Partisan. Their concern is what message that interview might have sent to the country. It is clear, however, that Senator Ashcroft has forthrightly and forcefully condemned racism and discrimination, and he has left no doubt or ambiguity regarding his views on that matter. During his confirmation hearings, Senator Ashcroft said, ``Let me make something as plain as I can make it. Discrimination is wrong. Slavery was abhorrent. Fundamental to my belief in freedom and liberty is that these are God-given rights.'' And in his responses to written questions, he said, ``I reject racism in all its forms. I find racial discrimination abhorrent, and against everything that I believe in.'' It is clear to me that John Ashcroft believes in equal treatment under the law for everyone. He believes in it, and he has committed to fight to make it a reality for all Americans. Now, as to the magazine itself, Senator Ashcroft contritely admitted that he does not know very much about it. He confessed that he should have done more research about it before talking to them. And he said that he did not intend his telephone interview--or any other interview he has participated in during his career--as an automatic endorsement of the editorial positions of those publications. John Ashcroft went even further than that. He said, ``I condemn those things which are condemnable'' about Southern Partisan magazine. This was a strong statement against any unacceptable ideas discussed in that publication. And it was the strongest statement possible from someone who did not personally know the facts. Despite Senator Ashcroft's contriteness and strong words, some Senators and interest groups have demanded that Senator Ashcroft go out on a limb and add his derision based upon an acceptance at face value of all the negative allegations concerning that magazine. In my opinion, Mr. President, this led to one of the most profound moments of the confirmation hearings. A member of the Committee pushed Senator Ashcroft to label the Southern Partisan Magazine as ``racist''--even after Senator Ashcroft explained that he did not know whether that was true. The profound part was John Ashcroft's response. He said, ``I know they've been accused of being racist. I have to say this, Senator: I would rather be falsely accused of being a racist than to falsely accuse someone else of being a racist.'' This exchange tells volumes about John's moral character, deep sense of fairness, and his fitness for the office of Attorney General. It would have been a lot easier for him just to say Yes, I agree with anyone who uses that term about someone else. Doing so would have saved him from further bashing by the Committee and the press. It would have been politically expedient. But John Ashcroft choose to take the high road, not to heap disdain onto something he didn't know about just because it would have suited his interests to do so. This was a vivid example of good judgment and good character. This is not to say that John Ashcroft defended anything about the magazine. Clearly he did not. In fact, when Senator Biden asked him whether the magazine was condemnable because it sells T-shirts that imply that Lincoln's assassin did a good thing, he answered: ``If they do that, I condemn'' it. And he clarified that ``Abraham Lincoln is my favorite political figure in the history of this country.'' What John Ashcroft did was state his absolute intolerance for racism and bigotry, and he did so honestly without creating a straw man, a scapegoat or a fall guy. I think we need to ask anyone who is not satisfied with John Ashcroft's answers what they really want. What do his accusers think justice is? I surely hope that no one in this body would say that justice means the knee-jerk condemnation of things they do not know about, so long as that condemnation is politically expedient. John Ashcroft's testimony on this issue demonstrates that he will be a fair and principled Attorney General. As he told the Judiciary Committee, ``I believe racism is wrong. I repudiate it. I repudiate racist organizations. I'm not a member of any of them. I don't subscribe to them. And I reject them.'' These are straightforward words from an honest man. I look forward to having such a man running our Department of Justice. The anti-Ashcroft groups also took advantage of a controversy concerning Bob Jones University in order to wage a ``guilt by association'' attack on John Ashcroft. John Ashcroft's visit to the school was not controversial when it occurred in May 1999. In fact, politicians of both parties had spoken there prior to Senator Ashcroft. Early in 2000, however, approximately eight months after John Ashcroft's visit, Bob Jones University became a flash point during the primary election because opponents of then-Governor George W. Bush accused Bush of associating with an anti-Catholic statement that appeared on the University's Internet site. Following the flap over Bush's visit, John Ashcroft said, ``I didn't really know they had these positions,'' and ``[f]rankly, I reject the anti-Catholic position of Bob Jones University categorically.'' Despite having repudiated the offending statement, John Ashcroft faced a new round of criticism for his appearance after he was nominated to be Attorney General. The special interest groups aligned against him attempted to associate John Ashcroft with every form of bigotry and intolerance they could. Any controversy over John Ashcroft's speech at Bob Jones University should have been put to rest by John Ashcroft's testimony at his confirmation hearings. That's when we finally got the chance to ask Senator Ashcroft what he thought. And Senator Ashcroft made it clear that he ``reject[s] any racial intolerance or religious intolerance that has been associated with[,] or is associated with[,]'' Bob Jones University. He couldn't have been more firm. Senator Ashcroft went on to explain that ``[he] want[s] to make it very clear that [he] reject[s] racial and religious intolerance.'' He said he does not endorse any bigoted views by virtue of ``having made an appearance in any faith or any congregation.'' He said, for example, that he has visited churches which do not ``allow women in certain roles,'' and that he does not endorse that view, either. Apparently, Ashcroft's answer eliminated any doubt about his personal views. As Senator Leahy told Senator Ashcroft during the hearing, ``I made my position very clear yesterday on how I feel about you on any questions of racial or religious bias. I stated that neither I nor anybody on this committee would make that claim about you.'' Even Catholic groups were satisfied. A spokesperson for the Catholic League said, ``In short, the controversy over Ashcroft is much ado about nothing as far as the Catholic League is concerned.'' Some outside groups had questioned the meaning of the speech that Senator Ashcroft gave during his visit to Bob Jones University. Senator Ashcroft explained during the confirmation hearing that the phrase ``We have no king but Jesus,'' was a representation of what colonists were saying at the time of the American Revolution. He said that the point of his speech was ``the idea that the ultimate authority of the ultimate idea of freedom in America is not governmentally derived.'' I don't think anyone in the Senate would take issue with that. It is an understatement to say that this idea is well-documented in the Founders' writings. Lacking any basis to criticize John Ashcroft's May 1999 appearance, members of the Judiciary Committee went in search of controversy by asking Senator Ashcroft if he would go to Bob Jones University again if invited as Attorney General. He said he would ``speak at places where [he] believe[s] [he] can unite people and move them in the right direction.'' In saying that, he contritely explained that his confirmation hearings--``and the prelude to th[o]se hearings''--taught him to be ``sensitive at a higher level now than [he] was before, that the attorney general in particular needs to be careful about what he or she does.'' Senator Ashcroft said that, if confirmed, he ``would be sensitive to accepting invitations so as to not allow a presumption to be made that I was endorsing things that would divide people instead of unite them.'' This answer apparently did not satisfy some on the Committee who have since argued that he should have pledged never to return to the University. But as Senator Ashcroft explained at his hearing, it is shortsighted to make a pledge not to go somewhere just because you disagree with them. John Ashcroft pointed out that Bob Jones University has ``abandoned the policy on interracial dating which was offensive'' after that policy became a focus of attention last year. I think John Ashcroft was contrite about what he learned and correct not to rule out visiting places where he thinks his presence could be a force for positive change. There has been much talk during the nominations process and in the press about the ``Ashcroft Standard.'' This is a catch-phrase invented by opponents of Senator Ashcroft who wish to create the impression that there is something unseemly about a senator vigorously exercising his constitutional duty to advise and give consent to executive branch nominees. But the Ashcroft Standard is strawman--created only so that it might be criticized. It is telling that this so-called Ashcroft Standard has been left undefined by those who invoke it. Its very hollowness is meant to evoke something inappropriate and suspect a way of evaluating far outside of the mainstream. Apparently this Standard is to be feared, because my colleagues repeatedly stated during the hearings that they would be magnanimous in not applying the Ashcroft Standard to John Ashcroft himself. But I suspect that John Ashcroft would pass the Ashcroft standard with flying colors. In fact the criteria that Senator Ashcroft used to evaluate executive branch nominees are entirely appropriate and in keeping with the Senate's duty to give ``advice and consent'' to the President. For instance, John Ashcroft applied his ``Standard'' to confirm all but 15 of President Clinton's 1,636 nominees. He voted to approve every Cabinet nomination made by President Clinton. Of President Clinton's 230 judicial nominees, Senator Ashcroft voted to confirm 218. There is also an underlying insinuation that the Ashcroft Standard is tinged with racial bias--and yet Senator Ashcroft voted to confirm 26 of 28 African-American judicial nominees. With so many of President Clinton's nominees getting past the Ashcroft Standard, some might argue that it's far too lenient, but that is the nature of the Senate's role. The President is thought to have significant leeway in choosing executive branch officials. The Senate gives advice and consent, but with great deference to the president's choice. As Hamilton wrote in the Federalist number 76, To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. The advice and consent role of the Senate must be exercised with an eye to the moral character of the nominee and his suitability for the office to which he is nominated. But it is a role that must be exercised with some natural deference to the prerogatives of the President. Indeed, this is a deference that has not been shown to President Bush during Senator Ashcroft's four days of hearings followed by more than 350 written questions. The crux of the Senate's confirmation role is to not to quibble with the policy preferences of the President's nominees, but rather to evaluate the character and moral fitness of the nominee. Indeed, I ask myself when presented with a nominee whether this person will faithfully execute the office to which they have been appointed, upholding the laws of the United States in the given position. I believe that Senator Ashcroft has applied similar criterion when evaluating nominees. This is not a sinister standard, but rather a mostly ordinary one. When this question is asked about Senator Ashcroft the answer is incredibly clear. As attorney general of Missouri John Ashcroft showed time and again that he was willing to uphold law with which he disagreed. John Ashcroft testified, ``I understand that being attorney general means enforcing the laws as they are written, not enforcing my own personal preference; it means advancing the national interest, not advocating my personal interest.'' For instance, in 1979 John Ashcroft issued an attorney general's opinion stating that under the state constitution and the law of Missouri, a local school board of education had no legal authority to grant permission for the distribution of religious publications to the student body on school grounds. In another situation, against the demands of pro-life advocates, then-attorney general Ashcroft directed the State of Missouri to maintain the confidentiality of abortion records because a fair reading of the law required it. Senator Ashcroft has not only testified that he will follow laws with which he disagrees, he has repeatedly shown that he does follow such laws. He has exhibited probity in office as attorney general, governor and senator. It is hard to imagine that he will not execute the office of United States Attorney General with equal integrity and commitment. Indeed, I am certain that Senator Ashcroft passes the much maligned Ashcroft Standard. So what is the Ashcroft Standard anyway? I admit that I am not quite sure. Is it a careful review of the nominee's written record? A judgment about how the nominee will enforce the law? A healthy dose of deference to the executive prerogative? An appreciation for diversity? These are the standards that I saw applied by Senator Ashcroft. The opponents of Senator Ashcroft have placed considerable emphasis on several specific nominations which I will discuss in turn. John Ashcroft's opponents have mischaracterized his actions with respect to the James Hormel nomination, and have fabricated innuendo aimed at tarnishing John Ashcroft's 30-year record of fairness with respect to employment of people without regard to sexual orientation. I supported James Hormel's nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg. I thought he was qualified for that post. At the same time, however, I respected the fact that others in this body, including Senator Ashcroft, did not share my opinion. I cannot conclude--as some people have--that because Senator Ashcroft and I disagreed, that Senator Ashcroft's views, which were based on the totality of the record, were not valid. I have been in public service long enough to understand that thoughtful people can have honest differences of opinion on such matters without holding unsupportable or fundamentally biased points of view. Now, there has been a great deal of confusion about Senator Ashcroft's role in the Hormel nomination. Outside special interest groups--which are trying to derail Senator Ashcroft's nomination have accused him of singlehandedly blocking or stopping James Hormel's nomination simply because of Hormel's sexual orientation. These charges are simply false. Although, as John Ashcroft told the Judiciary Committee, he voted against the nomination when it came to a vote in the Foreign Relations Committee, he did nothing to stop that nomination. John Ashcroft did not block a Senate vote on Mr. Hormel's nomination. In fact, Senator Ashcroft did not do anything to keep James Hormel's nomination from progressing. It was Senator Hutchinson who put a hold on the vote. In a letter dated January 24, 2001, Senator Hutchinson told Ashcroft that ``I feel it is important to set the record straight that you were in no way involved in the effort to delay Mr. Hormel's consideration by the full Senate.'' So let's look beyond the smokescreen of unsupported innuendo to examine what we really know about John Ashcroft. During the confirmation hearings, Senator Leahy asked John Ashcroft directly about his motives with respect to the James Hormel nomination. Senator Leahy asked, ``Did you block his nomination from coming to a vote because he is gay?'' And Senator Ashcroft said, ``I did not.'' He could not have been more clear. And when a man of John Ashcroft's integrity makes such a clear statement, we can take him at his word. Of course, opponents of John Ashcroft do not want to take him as his word. Some outside special interest groups are trying to use his Hormel nomination vote to paint a false portrait of a man who acts in a biased way against homosexuals. But there is absolutely no evidence in the record to support that accusation. Senator Ashcroft made it very clear, both during his hearing and in his responses to numerous written questions, that ``sexual orientation has never been something that I've used in hiring in any of the jobs, in any of the offices I've held.'' In an effort to cloud this crystal-clear statement, the forces opposing Ashcroft presented to the media--not to the Judiciary Committee--a man named Paul Offner, who claimed that John Ashcroft asked him about sexual orientation 16 years ago in an interview. Mr. Offner's accusations have been entirely rebutted by two eyewitnesses present during that interview, both of whom have said that John Ashcroft never asked Mr. Offner--or any of the many other people he interviewed for jobs--about sexual preference. Carl Koupal, who sat in on numerous interviews with John Ashcroft as head of Ashcroft's gubernatorial transition team, said, ``I can say John Ashcroft did not ask that question of him or any other candidate we spoke to.'' Another Ashcroft aide, Duncan Kincheloe, said, ``It's inconceivable to me, and I'm certain I would remember if it had been asked. I've never heard him ask about that, and I've sat through dozens and dozens of interviews with him.'' This evidence should lay to rest any questions about John Ashcroft's past record of fairness with respect to sexual orientation. In addition to that past record, we also have Senator Ashcroft's clear pledge for the future. He told the Judiciary Committee in no uncertain terms that he ``will enforce the law equally without regard to sexual orientation if appointed and confirmed as attorney general.'' He also promised that sexual preference ``will not be a consideration in hiring at the Department of Justice'' if he is confirmed. And this statement reflects more than his promise to uphold current policy; it reflects John Ashcroft's own judgment. He said, ``Even if the executive order [barring the consideration of sexual orientation as relevant to hiring] would be repealed, I would still not consider sexual orientation in hiring at the Department of Justice because I don't believe it relevant to the responsibilities.'' Now, that is a very strong statement, Mr. President. Especially because it comes from a person of unquestioned integrity. The facts described above convince me completely that John Ashcroft will always act fairly in his law enforcement decisions and hiring decisions to people regardless of sexual orientation. While reasonable minds can differ and come to different judgments on the matter, there were many legitimate reasons to vote against confirmation for Judge White. In fact, every Republican thought it was appropriate to do so. Several of my colleagues have argued that Senator Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record and wrongly painted him as pro- criminal and anti-law enforcement, but many of us have reviewed Judge White's record and were greatly troubled by his dissenting opinions in several death penalty cases. In these cases Judge White displayed a real inclination to overturn death sentences, even when they were called for by law. For instance in the Johnson case, the defendant was convicted on four counts of first-degree murder for killing three officers and the wife of the sheriff. Johnson was sentenced to death on all counts. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Judge White dissented arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge White thought that Johnson deserved further opportunity to present a defense based on post-traumatic stress disorder. But the majority showed that there was no credible evidence that Johnson suffered from this disorder. Rather, it was clear that defense counsel had fabricated a story that was quickly disproved at trial. For instance, defense counsel stated that Johnson had placed a perimeter of cans and strings and had deflated the tires of his car. At trial, testimony revealed that police officers had taken these actions, not the defendant. Further, Congressman Kenneth Hulshof, the prosecutor in the Johnson case testified at Senator Ashcroft's hearings that it was almost impossible to make out an argument for ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant ``hired counsel of his own choosing. He picked from our area in mid-Missouri what . . . I referred to as a dream team.'' Judge White has every right to pen a dissent in Johnson and other cases involving the death penalty. Similarly, every senator has the duty to evaluate these opinions as part of Judge White's judicial record. And that's just what Senator Ashcroft did. At no time did Senator Ashcroft derogate Judge White's background. I consider Judge White to be a decent man with an impressive personal background. He has accomplished a great deal and come up from humble beginnings. But his record of dissenting in death penalty cases troubled me enough to vote against his confirmation. Many of my colleagues have impugned Senator Ashcroft's motives for voting against Judge White. But Judge White's nomination was strongly opposed by many of Senator Ashcroft's constituents and also by major law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association and the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs. Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by Johnson, testified, ``I opposed Judge White's nomination to the federal bench, and I asked Senator Ashcroft to join me because of Judge White's opinion on a death penalty case . . . In his opinion, Judge White urged that Johnson be given a second chance at freedom. I cannot understand his reasoning. I know that the four people killed were not given a second chance.'' Since his nomination for a federal judgship was defeated, Judge White has continued to dissent in criminal cases. For example, in Missouri v. Johns, 2000 WL 1779262, Dec. 5, 2000, a jury sentenced the defendant Johns to death for a murder in which he shot the victim seven times, including a fatal shot to the head. Following this murder, Johns evaded capture for six months, during which time he committed two more murders and several robberies. When finally located by authorities, Johns took a hostage, placed a gun to her head, and threaten to kill her. Johns confessed to the initial killing, but claimed that he did so in self-defense, despite the fact that he shot the victim seven times. In addition, Johns confessed to the robbery and murder of the two other victims during his flight from justice. During the trial, Johns tried to introduce evidence that the victim had a violent reputation, but the trial court excluded the proffered evidence on the grounds of relevancy. On appeal, Johns argued that the inability to admit evidence of the victim's reputation harmed his theory of self-defense. In the Missouri Supreme Court, a 5-2 majority ruled that the trial court did not commit reversible error and upheld the verdict and sentence. Judge White, however, joined a dissent with only one other judge which argued that ``Johns was deprived of a fair trial with respect to his self-defense theory.'' Like the defendant in Missouri v. Johnson, the defendant in Missouri v. Johns murdered several people and confessed to the killings. There was no doubt about the defendant's guilt in either case, yet Judge White dissented and would have granted a new trial to both defendants. I bring up the recent case of Missouri v. Johns not to criticize Judge White or reargue his nomination. Instead, I mention this decision only to show that there was a legitimate basis for Senator Ashcroft's concerns about Judge White in death penalty cases. Senator Ashcroft has made the very valid point that if Judge White had been confirmed as a federal district judge, he would have had enormous power to reverse state criminal convictions, including death penalty sentences, unilaterally because of the federal writ of habeas corpus. Finally, many of my colleagues have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White was underhanded and done with stealth. Well, Senator Ashcroft voted against Judge White's nomination in Committee. He expressed his disapproval at that time. If he had held up the nomination in Committee without allowing it to proceed to the floor he would have been criticized for delay. Indeed, Senator Boxer pleaded during a debate about several judges including Ronnie White, ``I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all things that are good in our country, give people a chance. If you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It is wrong. You would not do it to a friend.'' (Cong. Rec. S. 11871, Oct. 4, 1999). Other Senators have repeatedly suggested that the Senate has ``subtle'' means of holding up nominees. But at the same time senators are rebuked for placing holds on nominees. Thus, Senator Ashcroft was between a rock and a hard place as to how to raise his legitimate concerns about Judge White. Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity, one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General that we have ever seen. His opposition to Judge White was principled and in keeping with the proper exercise of the advice and consent duty of a senator. I regret that we have needed to revisit this issue at such great length. Senator Ashcroft has also been unfairly criticized for opposing the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. Mr. Lee had a noted record of promoting and preserving race-conscious policies of questionable constitutionality. Opposition to Mr. Lee was not limited to Senator Ashcroft--nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed this nominee, including myself. I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee and the difficult circumstances in which his family came to this country, worked hard, and realized the American dream. Despite this high personal regard, I was deeply concerned about Mr. Lee's nomination because much of his career was devoted to preserving constitutionally suspect race- conscious public policies that ultimately sort and divide citizens by race. At the time of his hearings, it was clear that he would have us continue down the road of racial spoils, a road on which Americans are seen principally through the looking glass of race. Senator Ashcroft did not distort Mr. Lee's testimony. When Mr. Lee stated the test of Adarand he said that the Supreme Court considered racial preference programs permissible if ``conducted in a limited and measured manner.'' While this might be correct in a narrow sense, it purposefully misses the main point of the Court's fundamental holding that such race-conscious programs are presumptively unconstitutional. Mr. Lee might have stated that strict scrutiny was the standard articulated in Adarand; however, when he described the content of this standard it was far looser than what the Supreme Court delineated. Mr. Lee's misleading description can properly be assailed as a fundamental mischaracterization of the law. Senator Ashcroft has stated that he opposed Mr. Lee because of his record of advocacy and his mischaracterization of Supreme Court precedent. The failure to recognize the established legal standard established by the Supreme Court would have serious effects on Mr. Lee's ability to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Senator Ashcroft's reasons for opposing Mr. Lee are amply supported by the record. Another area in which Senator Ashcroft has been unfairly attacked is his ability to enforce the law in areas related to abortion. Many of those opposing Senator Ashcroft have taken great pains to state that they do not oppose him because of his ideology, but then go on to say they cannot support him because of his positions on abortion issues. Isn't that ideology? Make no mistake about it, Senator Ashcroft has a consistent pro-life record. Contrary to what his opponents would have you believe, that is not extremist or ``out of the mainstream.'' Millions of Americans share the same view. In the end, what is important is Senator Ashcroft's commitment to enforce the law as its been interpreted by the Supreme Court--and not the policy positions he advocated as a legislator. While Senator Ashcroft's critics have spared nothing in their attempts to distort his record and create fear, Senator Ashcroft's record over 25 years as a public servant, and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing, demonstrate his lifelong commitment to the rule of law and his respect for the uniquely different roles of a legislator and a law enforcer. Senator Ashcroft has proven that he can objectively interpret and enforce the law even where the law may diverge from his personal views on policy. His record and character demonstrate that he can be, as he has pledged, ``law oriented and not results oriented.'' Contrary to the fear-mongering of his critics, Senator Ashcroft will enforce the law protecting a woman's right to an abortion. He was very straightforward in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee when he stated that, in his view, Roe v. Wade is settled law and that the Supreme Court's decisions upholding Roe ``have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic.'' He said he would enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. When asked whether he would seek to change the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, Senator Ashcroft stated that ``it is not the agenda of the President-elect to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe. And as his Attorney General, I don't think it could be my agenda to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe.'' He also stated that as Attorney General, it wouldn't be his job to ``try and alter the position of the administration.'' Senator Ashcroft clearly recognized the importance of not devaluing ``the currency'' of the Solicitor General's Office by taking matters to the Supreme Court on a basis the Court has already stated it does not want to entertain. He noted that in this way, ``accepting Roe and Casey as settled law is important, not just to this arena, but important in terms of the credibility of the Department.'' He said he would give advice based upon sound legal analysis, not ideology or personal beliefs. He made a commitment that ``if the law provides something that is contrary to my ideological belief, I will provide them with that same best judgment of the law.'' From Senator Ashcroft, those are not just words. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated that he can do just that. For example, as Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft did not let his personal opinion on abortion cloud his legal analysis. He protected the confidentiality of abortion records maintained by the Missouri Department of Health even when they were requested by pro-life groups. Likewise, when asked to determine whether a death certificate was required for all abortions, regardless of the age of the fetus, Attorney General Ashcroft--despite his personal view that life begins at conception issued an opinion that Missouri law did not require any type of certificate if the fetus was 20 weeks old or less. His legal analysis was fair and objective and unaffected by what his policy views may have been. There has also been, what I consider, unfounded skepticism over whether Senator Ashcroft would vigorously enforce clinic access and anti-violence statutes. Being pro-life is not inconsistent with opposing violence at clinics. The primary focus of the opposition has been the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act or ``FACE''. Senator Ashcroft supports the FACE law, and always has. Senator Ashcroft testified specifically on how he would enforce FACE and other clinic access and anti-violence laws. He stated clearly that he would enforce these laws ``vigorously'', that he would investigate allegations ``thoroughly'' and that he would devote resources to these cases on a ``priority basis.'' He further stated that he would maintain the appropriate Task Forces which have been created to facilitate enforcement of clinic access and anti-violence statutes. These statements are totally consistent with Senator Ashcroft's long record of speaking out against violence and his belief that the First Amendment does not give anyone the right to ``violate the person, safety and security'' of another. Senator Ashcroft has always spoken out against clinic violence and other forms of domestic terrorism. He has written to constituents about his strong opposition to violence and his belief that, regardless of his personal views on abortion, people should be able to enter abortion clinics safely. He voted for Senator Schumer's amendment to the Bankruptcy bill that made debts incurred as a result of abortion clinic violence non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Senator Ashcroft has always condemned criminal violence at abortion clinics--or anywhere for that matter--and believes people who commit these acts of violence and intimidation should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. As Attorney General he'll do just that. Access to contraceptives is another area that I think Senator Ashcroft has been unfairly criticized. His critics make dire predictions about the future that are totally unsupported by Senator Ashcroft's testimony. Senator Ashcroft could not have testified any more clearly on the issue of contraception. He stated that: ``I think individuals who want to use contraceptives have every right to do so . . . [and] I think that right is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.'' He also testified that he would defend current laws should they be attacked. What more can he say? Is there anything a pro- life nominee could say to please the pro-abortion interest groups? Senator Ashcroft's opponents argue that someone who has been active in advocating a particular policy position cannot set that aside and enforce the law fairly. I don't believe they can be serious. Does this mean that a person of character and integrity who had been active in the pro-choice movement could never be Attorney General? And what about the death penalty? Could we have no future Attorney General, regardless of how honest and well-qualified, who opposed the death penalty? Of course not. In fact, Republicans voted to confirm Janet Reno, despite her personal opposition to the death penalty, because she said she could still enforce the law even though she disagreed with it. If this is not about ideology, then we should get to the business of confirming Senator Ashcroft. He has given strong and specific assurances to the Senate on abortion questions. These assurances are backed up by his proven record as Missouri Attorney General and Governor. Most importantly, they are backed up by Senator Ashcroft's personal integrity and decency characteristics known personally by almost every member of this body. I was quite surprised to hear Senator Ashcroft's opponents criticize his work on behalf of faith-based organizations that everyone recognizes do remarkable good works in every community across this nation. Senator Ashcroft has participated in and encouraged these programs at both a personal and policy level. I think we should be proud of Senator Ashcroft's efforts to assist the disadvantaged. Senator Ashcroft was the author of the charitable choice provision in the landmark Welfare Reform Act of 1996. That provision encourages faith-based organizations to participate in the welfare reform effort on the same basis as secular organizations. As a result, faith-based groups can now, for example, conduct drug-treatment and job placement programs for the poor. These programs and other similar faith-based programs have proved remarkably successful. As the noted civil rights activist Robert Woodson testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft's charitable choice legislation ``may do more to help blacks solve the real problems in their own communities than anything else government has done.'' Some critics claim that Senator Ashcroft's charitable choice provision violates the separation of church and state embodied in the First Amendment. These criticisms, however, are misplaced. The charitable choice law states that no federal funds ``shall be expended for sectarian worship, instruction, or proselytization.'' Moreover, the charitable choice law relies on Supreme Court precedents to clarify what is constitutionally permissible when state and local governments cooperate with religious and charitable organizations. The charitable choice law also allows beneficiaries who object to the religious character of the organization to receive assistance from an alternative provider. During last year's Presidential campaign of 2000, both President George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore supported the charitable choice law as a means to empower faith-based charities. As President Bush recently said: ``A compassionate society is one which recognizes the great power of faith. We in government must not fear faith-based programs, we must welcome faith-based programs.'' Thanks in large part to Senator Ashcroft's leadership, President Bush will be able to expand the role of faith-based charities in fighting poverty, addiction and other social ills. Based on the charitable choice law, President Bush created an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the White House last week. This office will be led by the prominent University of Pennsylvania professor John DiIulio. In short, the charitable choice law was one of Senator Ashcroft's most important legislative accomplishments and something that should weigh in favor of his nomination, not against it. The criticism leveled against Senator Ashcroft on Charitable Choice suggests the possibility of an even more dangerous problem, religious intolerance. Article VI of our Constitution, while requiring that Officers of the government swear to support the constitution, assures us that ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' I fear that in considering the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States, some are coming very close to violating the spirit, if not the letter of that assurance. In response to a question I posed to Senator Ashcroft about the wide disparity of treatment accorded him as a person of faith and that accorded to Senator Lieberman when he was running for Vice-President, and whether anything in his faith background would interfere with his ability to apply the law as critics had charged, Senator Ashcroft said: In examining my understanding and my commitment and my faith heritage, I'd have to say that my faith heritage compels me to enforce the law and abide by the law rather than to violate the law. And if in some measure somehow I were to encounter a situation where the two came into conflict so that I could not respond to this faith heritage which requires me to enforce the law, then I would have to resign. Those looking for reassurance that Senator Ashcroft will enforce the law as written need look no further than this brief paragraph. Senator Ashcroft's critics and supporters alike uniformly agree that he is a man who takes his faith seriously. If he says his faith compels him to abide by the law, I think his promise carries great weight. As he said in his opening statement, he takes his oath of office seriously, it being a sacred and solemn obligation. Nevertheless, he has been attacked as a dangerous zealot by many of his opponents, who suggest that his faith will require him to violate the law, or as a liar who cannot be trusted because he says he will swear to uphold the law. Well, his critics cannot have it both ways. Apparently, his critics do not understand either a faith that transcends politics and grasping after power or the distinction between being an advocate for change in the law and being an impartial magistrate to apply the law. The Attorney General is perhaps the most important position in the President's cabinet. The Department of Justice has a long and storied history. It represents all Americans in the pursuit of justice. As such, the Department of Justice demands an Attorney General with great ability, integrity, and judgment. John Ashcroft has all these qualities. Senator Ashcroft's abilities are demonstrated by the fact he was elected to statewide office five times in Missouri, a classic swing state in America's political landscape. As Attorney General and Governor of Missouri, John Ashcroft served with distinction and built a record of public service and devotion to the rule of law. He continued that proud service representing Missouri in the United States Senate. His leadership and integrity has been recognized by people in both political parties throughout his career. He was elected President of the National Association of Attorneys General by his fellow state attorneys general. As Governor of Missouri, John Ashcroft was elected Chairman of the National Governors Association by his fellow governors. Each time John Ashcroft was elected to these prestigious positions, the majority of state attorneys general and governors were Democrats. The fact that he was chosen to lead these organizations while in the minority party is a testament to his integrity and ability. Mr. President, John Ashcroft is the most qualified nominee for Attorney General in history. We are fortunate to have him as a nominee. I look forward to his stewardship of the Department of Justice. Mr. President, much of the debate over the nomination of John Ashcroft has focused only on a few important issues, but those are not the only important issues central to the core mission of the Department of Justice. I believe the Senate would be well-served to consider the Ashcroft nomination in light of all of the important duties of the Attorney General. When this debate is placed in the proper perspective, it becomes even more obvious how qualified Senator Ashcroft is to be the next Attorney General of the United States. The Department of Justice was established by Congress in 1870. It is the largest law firm in the United States with 123,000 employees and an annual budget of approximately $21 billion. Through its thousands of lawyers, agents, and investigators, the Justice Department plays a vital role in fighting violent crime and drug trafficking, ensuring business competition in the marketplace, and enforcing immigration and naturalization laws. Consider the following major components of the Justice Department in light of the qualifications of Senator Ashcroft: The Civil Rights Division was established in 1957 to secure the effective enforcement of civil rights for all Americans. The Civil Rights Division is responsible for enforcing federal statutes that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, gender, disability, religion, and national origin. In order to enforce these landmark laws, the Civil Rights Division engages in a variety of litigation to fight discrimination in employment, housing and immigration. In particular, the litigation brought by the Civil Rights Division under the Voting Rights Act has had a profound influence on the electoral landscape in the last three decades. As Senator Ashcroft stated at his confirmation hearing: ``No part of the Department of Justice is more important than the Civil Rights Division.'' John Ashcroft vigorously enforced civil rights laws as the Attorney General and Governor of Missouri. He signed Missouri's first hate crimes statute. Not content to wait for the legislature to act, John Ashcroft made Missouri one of the first States to recognize Martin Luther King Day by issuing an executive order. He also led the fight to save Lincoln University, the university in Missouri founded by African- American Civil War veterans. As the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Ashcroft held the first hearing on racial profiling in the history of Congress. When asked at his confirmation hearing about his priorities for the Justice Department, Senator Ashcroft cited the abolition of racial profiling as one of his top two priorities. Senator Ashcroft stated at his confirmation hearing that the paramount civil right is personal safety. The Attorney General is America's chief law enforcement officer, and managing the Criminal Division is the most important aspect of the Attorney General's duties. The Criminal Division oversees thousands of federal agents and is charged with, among other things, investigating and prosecuting drug dealers, illegal gun traffickers, bank robbers, child pornographers, computer hackers, and terrorists. The Criminal Division has a visible and tangible effect on the lives of all Americans. I have no doubt that, given his vast experience as a public servant, Senator Ashcroft understands and appreciates the mission of the Criminal Division. Throughout his long career as Missouri Attorney General, Missouri Governor, and United States Senator, Senator Ashcroft has been a strong advocate of tough and effective criminal law enforcement. Perhaps the greatest threat facing our nation today is the scourge of illegal drugs. For years, Senator Ashcroft has been a leader in the fight against illegal drugs. In 1996, Senator Ashcroft helped me enact the Comprehensive Methamphetamine Control Act, which increased penalties for the manufacture and trafficking of methamphetamine. Senator Ashcroft also helped enact federal laws that increased mandatory minimum sentences for methamphetamine offenses and authorized courts to order persons convicted of methamphetamine offenses to pay for the costs of laboratory cleanup. Last year, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to target additional resources to local law enforcement agencies to fight methamphetamine. Senator Ashcroft also understands that drug treatment and prevention are vital components of an effective drug strategy. In last year's methamphetamine legislation, Senator Ashcroft included funding for drug education and prevention programs, including resources for school-based anti-methamphetamine initiatives. As Attorney General and Governor of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft increased funding for anti-drug programs by almost 40%, the vast majority of which was for education, prevention and treatment. During his confirmation hearing, Senator Ashcroft has also made clear that prosecuting gun crimes will be a top priority of the Ashcroft Justice Department. Unfortunately, gun prosecutions have not always been a priority for the Department of Justice. For example, between 1992 and 1998, prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800. In the Senate, John Ashcroft was one of the leaders in fighting gun crimes. To reverse the decline in gun prosecutions by the Justice Department, Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional federal prosecutors and agents to increase the federal prosecution of criminals who use guns. In addition, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Ashcroft juvenile assault weapons ban in May of 1999. Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation that prohibits any person convicted of even misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, and he voted for legislation to extend the Brady Act to prohibit persons who commit violent crimes as juveniles from possessing firearms. In order to close the so-called ``gun show loophole,'' Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation, which I authored, to require mandatory instant background checks for all firearm purchases at gun shows. In order to maintain tough federal penalties, Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to require a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for federal gun crimes and for legislation to encourage schools to expel students who bring guns to school. Senator Ashcroft voted for the ``Gun-Free Schools Zone Act'' that prohibits the possession of a firearm in a school zone, and he voted for legislation to require gun dealers to offer child safety locks and other gun safety devices for sale. I have no doubt that with John Ashcroft as Attorney General, the Justice Department will target and prosecute gun crimes with unprecedented zeal. To his credit, Senator Ashcroft understands that the vast majority of criminal law enforcement takes place at the state and local level. Given his tenure as Missouri Attorney General and Governor, Senator Ashcroft appreciates the important role that the federal government can play in supporting state and local authorities by providing resources and training. He also understands that the Justice Department should provide such support without intruding into traditional areas of state sovereignty. In the Senate, Senator Ashcroft steadfastly supported state and local law enforcement. He won enactment of a bill that extends higher education financial assistance to spouses and dependent children of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. He was the principal proponent of the ``Care for Police Survivors Act,'' a measure that increases benefits to the survivors of public safety officers killed in the line of duty. Along with Senator Biden, Senator Ashcroft co- sponsored legislation to reauthorize the COPS program. In addition, Senator Ashcroft cosponsored the ``Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 1995.'' This act allocated $1 billion to state and local law enforcement to update and computerize criminal records, automated fingerprint systems, and DNA identification operations. John Ashcroft also cosponsored the ``21st Century Justice Act'' which included Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants. These grants have provided federal resources to States to build prisons to incarcerate violent and repeat offenders. Given his record, it is no surprise that law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, and the National Association of Police Organizations are united in their support for Senator Ashcroft's nomination. The Civil Division represents the United States government, including executive departments and agencies, in civil litigation. First and foremost, the Civil Division defends the constitutionality of federal statutes, regulations, and executive orders. The Civil Division also litigates complex commercial cases. This litigation is especially important for property rights because the Civil Division represents the federal government against claims that private property was taken for public use without just compensation. In addition, the Civil Division represents the federal government in consumer litigation under various consumer protection and public health statutes. Senator Ashcroft's experience as the Attorney General of Missouri prepared him well to oversee the Civil Division. John Ashcroft established the Consumer Affairs Division in the Missouri Attorney General's office. He brought many consumer protection actions, including odometer tampering cases and financial pyramid schemes. In Illinois v. Abbott & Associates, Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting the right of state attorneys general to conduct antitrust investigations. In the Senate, John Ashcroft helped enact legislation to combat telemarketing scams against senior citizens. Created in 1909, the Environment and Natural Resources Division is the Nation's chief environmental lawyer. It is responsible for litigating cases ranging from the protection of endangered species to the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. In addition to prosecuting environmental crimes, the Environment and Natural Resources Division ensures that federal environmental laws are implemented in a fair and consistent manner. As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft aggressively enforced that state's environmental protection laws. To cite but a few examples, Attorney General Ashcroft brought suit to prevent an electric company from causing oxygen levels in downstream waters to harm fish. He also sought to recover damages from the electric company. Attorney General Ashcroft brought a successful action against the owner of an apartment complex for violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law relating to treatment of waste water, and he sued the owner of a trailer park for violations of the Missouri Clean Water Law. As Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft also filed numerous briefs in the United States Supreme Court that advanced environmental protections. For example: In Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation & Development Commission, Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief supporting a California law that conditioned the construction of nuclear power plants on findings that adequate storage and disposal facilities are available. In Sporhase v. Nebraska, Attorney General Ashcroft endorsed the State of Nebraska's effort to stop defendants from transporting Nebraska groundwater into Colorado without a permit. In Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Attorney General Ashcroft filed a brief supporting the Natural Resources Defense Council's position on tougher environmental regulations relating to storage of nuclear wastes. As Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft issued numerous legal opinions that furthered the enforcement of environmental laws. I would like to describe a few of these formal opinions. In Attorney General Opinion No. 123-84, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that underground injection wells constitute pollution of the waters of the state and are subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources under the state's Clean Water Act. Attorney General Ashcroft also opined that it would be unlawful to build or operate such a well unless a permit had been obtained from the Clean Water Commission. In Attorney General Opinion No. 67, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that operators of surface mines must obtain a permit for each year that the mine was un-reclaimed. In reaching this opinion, Attorney General Ashcroft determined that the operator of the mine must have a permit continuously from the time mining operations begin until reclamation of the site is complete. Attorney General Ashcroft concluded that the continuous permit requirement facilitated Missouri's intention ``to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of this state, and to protect the natural resources of the state from environmental harm.'' In Attorney General Opinion No. 189, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion that Missouri's cities and counties had the authority to require that all solid waste be disposed of at approved solid waste recovery facilities, rather than be buried in landfills. In rendering his opinion, Attorney General Ashcroft gave credence to the arguments that ``recycling of solid wastes results in fewer health hazards and pollution problems than does disposal of the same types of wastes in landfills'' and that ``public welfare is better served by burning solid wastes for generation of electricity, thus conserving scarce natural resources.'' To those who have irresponsibly charged that Senator Ashcroft will not enforce our environmental laws, I say this: Look at his record. In conclusion, there are other offices in the Justice Department that are also very important. In the interest of time, however, I have focused on a select few. My point today is a simple one when this nomination is considered in light of the mission of the Department of Justice, it becomes apparent how well-qualified John Ashcroft is to be Attorney General. I look forward to his stewardship of the Department of Justice. Mr. President, I rise to respond to mischaracterizations about John Ashcroft's role in the James Hormel nomination, and about John Ashcroft's public record of fairness with respect to employment of people. Let me say at the outset that I supported James Hormel's nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg. I thought he was qualified for that post. At the same time, however, I respected the fact that others in this body, including Senator Ashcroft, did not share my opinion. I cannot conclude--as some people have--that because Senator Ashcroft and I disagreed, that Senator Ashcroft's views, which were based on the totality of the record, were not valid. I have been in public service long enough to understand that thoughtful people can have honest differences of opinion on such matters without holding unsupportable or fundamentally biased points of view. Now, there has been a great deal of confusion about Senator John Ashcroft's role in the Hormel nomination. Outside special interest groups--which are trying to derail Senator Ashcroft's nomination--have accused him of singlehandedly blocking or stopping James Hormel's nomination simply because of Hormel's sexual orientation. These charges are false. Although, as John Ashcroft told the Judiciary Committee, he voted against the nomination when it came to a vote in the Foreign Relations Committee, he did nothing to stop that nomination. John Ashcroft did not block a Senate vote on Mr. Hormel's nomination, and he did not vote against that nomination on the floor because it never came to the floor. So let's look beyond the smokescreen of unsupported innuendo to examine what we really know about John Ashcroft. during the confirmation hearings, Senator Leahy and John Ashcroft directly about his motives with respect to the James Hormel nomination. Senator Leahy asked, ``Did you block his nomination from coming to a vote because he is gay?'' And Senator Ashcroft said, ``I did not.'' He could not have been more clear. And when a man of John Ashcroft's integrity makes such a clear statement, we should take him at his word. Still, however, several Senators have repeated the unsupported allegation that Ashcroft's sole reason for voting against Hormel is that Hormel is gay. Some opponents of John Ashcroft are taking the position of using his Hormel nomination vote to paint a false portrait of a man who acts in a biased way towards homosexuals. But there is absolutely no evidence in the record to support that accusation. Senator Ashcroft made it very clear, both during his hearing and in his responses to numerous written questions, that ``sexual orientation has never been something that I've used in hiring in any of the jobs, in any of the offices I've held.'' In an effort to cloud this crystal-clear statement, the forces opposing Ashcroft presented to the media a man named Paul Offner, who claimed that John Ashcroft asked him about sexual orientation 16 years ago in an interview. Mr. Offner's accusations have been entirely rebutted not only by Senator Ashcroft but also by two eyewitnesses present during that interview, both of whom have said that John Ashcroft never asked Mr. Offner--or any of the many other people he interviewed for jobs--about sexual preference. Carl Koupal, who sat in on numerous interviews with John Ashcroft as head of Ashcroft's gubernatorial transition team, said, ``I can say John Ashcroft did not ask that question of him or any other candidate we spoke to.'' Another Ashcroft aide, Duncan Kincheloe, said, ``It's inconceivable to me, and I'm certain I would remember if it had been asked. I've never heard him ask about that, and I've sat through dozens and dozens of interviews with him.'' This evidence should lay to rest questions related to the uncorroborated charges of Mr. Offner. At least one Senator, however, continues to ignore the facts and draw out the innuendo. That Senator said that Mr. Offner's allegations--even if untrue--would not have had any resonance if it were not for a history of unfairness. But that Senator has presented absolutely not evidence of any such history. Not a single person has come forward with a credible story of unfairness in John Ashcroft's 30-year public life, during which he conducted hundreds if not thousands of interviews and meetings, and made many hiring and firing decisions. Given all the public attention to this issue, and all of the league of special interest powerful lobbyists who are working hard to find just one witness against John Ashcroft, the absence of such a witness speaks loudly and clearly. In addition to his 30-year record of fairness, we also have Senator Ashcroft's clear pledge for the future. He told the Judiciary Committee in no uncertain terms that he ``will enforce the law equally without regard to sexual orientation if appointed and confirmed as attorney general.'' He also promised that sexual preference ``will not be a consideration in hiring at the Department of Justice'' if he is confirmed. And this statement reflects more than his promise to uphold current policy; it reflects John Ashcroft's own judgment. He said, ``even if the executive order [barring the consideration of sexual orientation as relevant to hiring] would be repealed, I would still not consider sexual orientation in hiring at the Department of Justice because I don't believe it relevant to the responsibilities.'' Now, that is a very strong statement, Mr. President. Especially because it comes from a person of unquestioned integrity. The facts that I have just described convince me completely that John Ashcroft, once confirmed, will always act fairly in his law enforcement decisions and hiring decisions to people regardless of sexual orientation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print an op-ed from the Wall Street Journal from today.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we are at the end of this particular debate. We are rapidly coming up to the time where we are all going to have to vote. It would be an understatement for me to say I have been disappointed in a number of our colleagues and the approaches they have taken towards this particular nominee. There has not been a person in the Senate who has not admitted that John Ashcroft is a person of integrity, decency, and honesty. He is a very religious man who believes in what he is doing. I believe some of the arguments that have been made have been pretty bad. They have distorted his record. Mischaracterizations have been throughout this matter. It has been really hard for me to sit here and listen to some of the arguments that have been made. Article VI of our Constitution, while requiring that Officers of the government swear to support the Constitution, assures us that ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' I fear that with regard to the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States, we are coming very close to violating the spirit, if not the letter of that assurance. In response to a question I posed to Senator Ashcroft about the wide disparity of treatment accorded him as a person of faith and that accorded to Senator Lieberman when he was running for Vice-President, and whether anything in his religious beliefs would interfere with his ability to apply the law as critics had charged, Senator Ashcroft said: In examining my understanding and my commitment and my faith heritage, I'd have to say that my faith heritage compels me to enforce the law and abide by the law rather than to violate the law. And if in some measure somehow I were to encounter a situation where the two came into conflict so that I could not respond to this faith heritage which requires me to enforce the law, then I would have to resign. If anyone is looking for reassurances about whether Senator Ashcroft will enforce the law as written, I do not think anyone would have to look farther than this brief paragraph. Senator Ashcroft's critics and supporters uniformly agree that Senator Ashcroft is a man who takes his faith seriously. And if he says his faith compels him to abide by the law rather than violate it, I think his promise carries some weight. As he said in his opening statement, he takes his oath of office seriously, it being an oath taken enlisting the help and witness of God in so doing. Nevertheless, he has been attacked as a dangerous zealot by many of his opponents, who suggest that his faith will require him to violate the law, or as a liar who cannot be trusted when he says he will uphold the law, even when he disagrees with it, as he has in similar circumstances in the past. His critics cannot have it both ways. They seek to impose either a caricature of strong faith--a faith defined by them--followed with zealous determination in violation of law, or of one who flouts his faith convictions by lying about his principles to get through the confirmation process. Which is it? Apparently, his critics do not understand either a faith that transcends politics and power-grabs or the distinction between being an advocate for change in the law and being an impartial magistrate applying the law. This is not surprising, given the proclivity of many of his critics for a largely lawless, results-oriented, politicized approach to law, whether at the Justice Department, in the Courts, or elsewhere. I think the corrosive attacks on a qualified nominee because of his religious beliefs not only weakens our constitutional government, but also undermines the ability of citizens in our democracy to engage in a meaningful dialog with each other. When such attacks are made on the ground that a man's faithful conviction will prevent him from discharging the duties of his office, whole segments of our democracy are disenfranchised, and the American heritage of religious tolerance is betrayed. Strangely, though many have commented on these issues, some claim the inability to see any such religious attack on Senator Ashcroft and the large number of Americans who believe much of what he does. Following my question to Senator Ashcroft, Senator Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, engaged in the following exchange with Senator Ashcroft: Mr. Leahy. I just would not want to leave one of the questions from my friend from Utah to give the wrong impression to the people here and just, sort of, make it very clear. Have you heard any senator, Republican or Democrat, suggest that there should be a religious test on your confirmation? Mr. Ashcroft. No senator has said, ``I will test you,'' but a number of senators have said, ``Will your religion keep you from being able to perform your duties in office?'' Mr. Leahy. I'm amazed at that. I have been amazed too, and I am not alone. I ask unanimous consent to have a sampling of editorials that have pointed out the religious test element in these attacks printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to respond to an unfair and untrue statement made on the floor of the Senate about John Ashcroft's work to combat the practice of racial profiling. Senator Ashcroft has a good record on the issue of racial profiling. It was Senator Ashcroft's decision to hold the first-ever congressional hearing on the topic, a decision that Senator Feingold, who is an expert on the issue in his own right, appropriately acknowledged during the confirmation hearings. Senator Feingold reported that Senator Ashcroft and his staff ``not only permitted, but assisted in a significant and powerful hearing on racial profiling in the Constitution subcommittee.'' Those who attempt to downgrade the importance of that hearing have failed to understand that Senator Ashcroft's motives are genuine. Senator Ashcroft opposes injustice of all kinds. As he explained in his opening statement to the Judiciary Committee, ``[f]rom racial profiling to news of unwarranted strip searches, the list of injustice in America today is still long. Injustice in America against any individual must not stand; this is the special charge of the U.S. Department of Justice.'' Senator Ashcroft made clear that his efforts to combat racial profiling will continue if he is confirmed as Attorney General. In response to Senator Feingold's direct question ``will you make racial profiling a priority of yours?'', John Ashcroft pledged, ``I will make racial profiling a priority of mine.'' He could not have been more clear. And he was equally lucid when describing the basis for his views. He said, ``I think racial profiling is wrong. I think it's unconstitutional. I think it violates the 14th Amendment.'' These are powerful words when spoken by a man such as John Ashcroft who is committed to enforcing the rule of law. Senator Ashcroft's views on racial profiling are part of his larger conception of the role of the Department of Justice on racial issues. Senator Ashcroft has pledged that, if confirmed, ``I would do my best never to allow a person to suffer solely on the basis of a person's race.'' He went on to say that ``it is important that the federal government be leading when it comes to respecting the rights of individuals and the Constitution. I will do everything I can to make sure that we lead properly in that respect.'' These are firm assurances from a man of integrity. As you can see, Mr. President, it is not only unfair but also inaccurate to portray Senator Ashcroft as insensitive to the issue of racial profiling. I hope my comments help to set the record straight. Mr. President, I would like to correct some misstatements that were made on the floor of the Senate concerning John Ashcroft's speech at Bob Jones University. There has been a real attempt here to wage a ``guilt by association'' attack on Senator Ashcroft, and I want to set the record straight. John Ashcroft's visit to the school was not controversial when it occurred in May 1999. But early in 2000--approximately eight months after John Ashcroft's visit--Bob Jones University became a flash point during the primary election because opponents of then-Governor George W. Bush accused Governor Bush of associating with an anti-Catholic statement that appeared on the University's Internet site. Following the flap over Bush's visit, John Ashcroft said, ``I didn't really know they had these positions,'' and ``[f]rankly, I reject the anti-Catholic position of Bob Jones University categorically.'' Despite having repudiated the offending statement, John Ashcroft faced a new round of criticism for his appearance after he was nominated to be Attorney General. The special interest groups aligned against him attempted to associate John Ashcroft with every form of bigotry and intolerance they could. But any controversy over John Ashcroft's speech at Bob Jones University should have been put to rest by John Ashcroft's testimony at this confirmation hearings. That's when we finally got the chance to ask Senator Ashcroft what he thought. And Senator Ashcroft made it clear that he ``reject[s] any racial intolerance or religious intolerance that has been associated with[,] or is associated with[,]'' Bob Jones University. Senator Ashcroft went on to explain that ``[he] want[s] to make it very clear that [he] reject[s] racial and religious intolerance.'' He said he does not endorse any bigoted views by virtue of ``having made an appearance in any faith or any congregation.'' He said, for example, that he has visited churches which do not ``allow women in certain roles,'' and that he does not endorse that view either. Apparently, Ashcroft's answer eliminated any doubt about his personal views. As Senator Leahy told Senator Ashcroft during the hearing, ``I made my position very clear yesterday on how I feel about you on any questions of racial or religious bias. I stated that neither I nor anybody on this committee would make that claim about you.'' Even Catholic groups were satisfied. A spokesperson for the Catholic League said, ``In short, the controversy over Ashcroft is much ado about nothing as far as the Catholic League is concerned.'' Some outside groups had questioned the meaning of the speech that Senator Ashcroft gave during his visit to Bob Jones University. Senator Ashcroft explained during the confirmation hearing that ``the phrase, `We have no king but Jesus,' was a representation of what colonists were saying at the time of the American Revolution.'' He said that the point of his speech was ``the idea that the ultimate authority of the ultimate idea of freedom in America is not governmentally derived.'' I don't think anyone in the Senate would take issue with that. It is an understatement to say that this idea is well-documented in the Founders' writings. Some went in search of controversy by asking Senator Ashcroft if he would go to Bob Jones University again if invited as Attorney General. He said he would ``speak at places where [he] believes[s] [he] can unite people and move them in the right direction.'' In saying that, he contritely explained that his confirmation hearings--``and the prelude to th[o]se hearings''--taught him to be ``sensitive at a higher level now than [he] was before, that the attorney general in particular needs to be careful about what he or she does.'' Senator Ashcroft said that, if confirmed, he ``would be sensitive to accepting invitations so as to not allow a presumption to be made that I was endorsing things that would divide people instead of unite them.'' This answer apparently did not satisfy some of the committee who have since argued that he should have pledged never to return to the University. But as Senator Ashcroft explained at his hearing, it is shortsighted to make a pledge not to go somewhere just because you disagree with them. John Ashcroft pointed out that the Bob Jones University has ``abandoned the policy on interracial dating which was offensive'' after that policy became a focus of attention last year. I think John Ashcroft was contrite about what he learned and correct not to rule out visiting places where he thinks his presence could be a force for positive change. Thank you for the opportunity to correct the misimpressions about this issue that were unfortunately created on the Senate floor. Mr. President, I feel compelled to address some of the misperceptions I fear may have been created by my colleagues in their comments about several aspects of Senator Ashcroft's record with regard to his role in antitrust litigation against politically-motivated boycotts and abortion when he was an elected official in Missouri. First, several of my colleagues have unfairly criticized Senator Ashcroft for the lawsuit Senator Ashcroft filed against the National Organization of Women (NOW) when he was Attorney General of Missouri. In response to Missouri's decision not to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment (``ERA''), NOW organized a boycott against Missouri (as well as other states that failed to ratify the ERA). Pursuant to that boycott, NOW urged organizations not to hold conventions in Missouri. In 1978, Missouri, through then-Attorney General Ashcroft, sued NOW in federal court, alleging that the boycott violated the antitrust laws. As Senator Ashcroft testified during his confirmation, he filed the lawsuit because the boycott was hurting the people of Missouri, and he believed it to be in violation of the antitrust laws. Senator Ashcroft testified that the lawsuit had nothing to do with the ERA or with political differences that Senator Ashcroft might have held with NOW. The decision to file it was purely a legal and economic one. The boycott hurt Missouri and, in his view, was illegal, and it was his duty to act on behalf of Missouri and its citizens. While some have charged this was settled law because a case cited in an opinion was more than a decade old, the fact that a case is cited in a decision is no indicator of whether the law of the particular case is settled. In fact, the legal question at issue--whether the Sherman Act covers boycotts engaged in with political rather than economic aims-- was acknowledged by all the judges on the 8th Circuit panel to be one of first impression. With all appellate judges acknowledging the novelty of the case, I do not know how the argument that the law was settled can be maintained. The language of the Sherman Act on its face covered the conduct at issue, and it was well established that it generally covered boycotts. The court eventually ruled 2 judges to 1 against General Ashcroft, but obviously it was an unanswered question in the law and could have gone either way. The law is clear now, but it wasn't then. An Attorney General for a state represents that state, and like any lawyer, is to zealously defend the rights of those he represents. So, naturally appeals were made. Not to make an appeal from an adverse ruling--especially in a case of first impression--would have departed from normal practice and may have violated his duty to his client, the people of Missouri. And the fact that the Supreme Court denied review means little in this case. The Supreme Court often denies review on cases of first impression to allow the lower courts to develop the law before it reviews and settles a question to get the benefit of broader thinking than a single court. It seems odd to criticize an Attorney General for trying to serve his client's interest, but I guess the point of John Ashcroft's critics is that results are what is important, and if your clients' opponent is a group favored by liberal politicians, serving their needs is more important than serving your constituents and clients, in this case, citizens of Missouri, no matter what your normal duty would be. That cannot be what we expect of either a state or our federal Attorney General. I would also like to respond to the number of comments that have been made about Senator Ashcroft's actions in Sermchief v. Gonzales, 660 S.W.2d 683 (Mo. 1983). This case was a declaratory action brought by nurses working at family planning clinics to permit them to prescribe contraceptives and other reproductive health materials according to the same protocols dictated by physicians under the Nursing Practice Act of 1975. The nurses also challenged the constitutionality of the statute. Attorney General Ashcroft's office was served with the lawsuit as required by law when any party challenges the constitutionality of a statute. Attorney General Ashcroft fulfilled his duty to defend the constitutionality of the statute. The brief his office filed did not address the proper scope of nursing practices as some have claimed. The Attorney General's Office also represented the State Board of Nursing, who was not a party to the case, and filed an amicus brief on behalf on their behalf urging an interpretation of the statute consistent with the position taken by the nurses. This is the view that prevailed in the Missouri Supreme Court. In other words, both of the Attorney General's briefs supported the constitutionality of the statute. It was proper for the Attorney General to file briefs on behalf of parties on either side of the litigation because the positions taken were not in conflict insofar as they supported constitutionality of statute. Even if they had been in conflict, the law recognizes that an Attorney General may take conflicting positions because he or she is the only lawyer the government has--even when different government entities cannot agree. The nurses were concerned about the Nursing Practice Act of 1975, and whether the term ``professional nursing'' expanded the scope of authorized nursing practices. The Board of Healing Arts threatened to order the nurses to show cause why the nurses should not be found guilty of the unauthorized practice of medicine, and physicians guilty of ``aiding and abetting.'' The Board of Healing won this argument at trial. The Missouri Supreme Court reversed the trial court and determined that the services complained of by the Board of Registration for the Healing Arts did indeed fall within the legislative standard of ``professional nursing'' and there were permissible. The nurses in question were performing services including breast and pelvic examinations, laboratory testing of PAP smears, gonorrhea cultures, and blood serology and providing information about contraceptives. The trial court, in ruling in favor of the Board, found, among other things, that the findings derived from pelvic examinations which the nurses performed to attempt to diagnose the existence or nonexistence of contraindications to the use of contraceptives ``require an individual to draw upon education, judgment and skill based upon knowledge and application of principles in addition to and beyond biological, physical, social, and nursing sciences.'' Sermchief, 660 S.W.2d at 686. It was not unreasonable for the Board to argue that services that were generally performed by physicians and required the ``education, judgment and skill'' beyond ``nursing sciences.'' In fact, at trial, many prominent physicians testified as such. The Supreme Court, however, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, based upon the legislative standard that was set at the time. The court relied on the nurses' professional status to know what their limits were. The Board, in bringing the case originally, simply didn't feel comfortable relying on the knowledge of an individual nurse as to what his or her limits were. Any characterization of Senator Ashcroft's actions as Missouri Attorney General as an effort to deny health services to rural or low income patients, is at war with the facts. He was the Attorney General, and he had an obligation to defend the constitutionality of the statute. That is what he did, and it was perfectly appropriate. Finally, I would like to respond to some criticism leveled at Senator Ashcroft for his support of pro-life legislation while Governor of Missouri. Even ardent supporters of Roe v. Wade must admit that the decision is not the model of clarity. Moreover, it did not, contrary to what many special interest groups claim, authorize abortion on demand. The decision, while establishing a constitutional right to abortion, set up a scheme that, in the words of Justice White, left the Supreme Court to serve as the country's ``ex officio medical board with powers to approve or disapprove medical and operative practices and standards throughout the United States.'' Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 99 (1976). Thus, even after the Roe decision, there remained many unanswered questions about the contours of this new constitutional right. These questions included, for example, issues about parental consent for minors, minimal standards for abortion clinics, and whether public facilities or employees can be used to perform abortions. Many state legislatures--not just Missouri's--sought to answer these questions left unanswered by Roe. The statute passed by the Missouri legislature and signed by then- Governor Ashcroft in 1986 was one of these attempts to define the parameters of the right to an abortion. Many abortions-rights extremists forget that the Supreme Court, in its abortion cases, has consistently held that states have an interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens and in reducing the incidence of abortions. The 1986 Missouri statute sought to do just that, with 20 provisions covering various issues left unresolved by the Roe decision. The Supreme Court, in its Webster decision, agreed that many of these provisions did not infringe on a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. See Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, et al., 492 U.S. 490, 522 (1989). Throughout this legislative and judicial process, the State of Missouri--not simply Governor John Ashcroft--followed established legal rules and procedures in their good faith effort to balance the right to an abortion with the state's interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens. While it may have asserted its rights to appeal, the State of Missouri and then-Governor Ashcroft always respected the opinions and orders of the court and the rules governing litigation. The good faith use of the courts to decide legal issues is no basis on which to criticize Senator Ashcroft.

Mr. HATCH

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 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.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Finally, Mr. President, I wish to speak about John Ashcroft's ability, if and when he becomes Attorney General, to enforce laws that he spoke against or even voted against as a legislator. As you know, Mr. President, opponents of Senator Ashcroft are accusing him of being unable to set aside his opinions on certain laws sufficiently in order to enforce those laws. And I have to give those opponents credit for their creativity. They have developed a brand new test for cabinet appointees. Eight years ago, when the Senate unanimously confirmed an Attorney General whose personal views opposed the death penalty and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences for convicted criminals, none of the anti- Ashcroft crusaders accused Janet Reno of being unable to set aside her personal views. But while I admire the creativity of this new approach, I am deeply troubled by the substance beneath it. What's being proposed is to disqualify from high office anyone who has previously taken a side on a legislative proposal. It is simply not true that a legislator is so tainted by efforts to change laws that thereafter he or she cannot perform the duties of attorney general. Outside this Chamber, and outside of the Washington Beltway, Americans understand that people can take on different roles and responsibilities when they are given different positions. Americans know that lawyers can become judges, welders can become foremen, engineers can become managers, and school teachers can become school board leaders. And Americans know that a Senator, whose job is to propose and vote on new laws, can become an Attorney General, whose job is to enforce those laws that are duly passed. There aren't many people who know as much about the different roles in government as John Ashcroft. He has been in the executive branch--as an Attorney General for 8 years. He has been chief executive as Governor for 8 years. And he has been in the legislative branch as a United States Senator for 6 years. Each of these positions have required an understanding of the differing roles assumed by the three branches of government. It is in this context that John Ashcroft told the Senate what he will do as Attorney General. He said he will enforce the laws as written, and uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court. This is a concise yet profound statement about the proper role of the Attorney General. And it is more than just a statement, because it is backed up by the unquestioned integrity of John Ashcroft, a man who will do what he says. He will enforce the law as it is written, even in those instances where he would have written it differently. Still, some members of this body are unconvinced. They apparently think that John Ashcroft will not do what he said. Of course they would not call him a liar--at least not explicitly, anyway. They are saying that, try as he might, he simply cannot enforce the law because he wants so badly for the law to say something other than what it actually says. Some who have adopted this view are accusing John Ashcroft of changing his views. They accuse him of having a ``confirmation conversion.'' By this they mean that people who take off their legislator's cap, and put on an attorney general's hat, cannot adapt from the role of law writer to law enforcer without being insincere. This is a ludicrous proposition. John Ashcroft has not undergone a confirmation conversion; he has been the victim of an interest group illusion. Members of this body know something that the public may not: There is an unspoken rule that a nominee does not answer questions in public between their nomination and their confirmation hearing. This is done out of respect for the Senate--whose job it is, after all, to listen to the nominee rather than the media. But savvy special interest groups take advantage of the time in between to wage a war of words against nominees they dislike. Many of those words are exaggerated or unsubstantiated attacks. The result can be the fabrication of a false public record. Mr. President, I am asking my fellow Senators to resist the temptation to label it a ``conversion'' when a nominee simply corrects the misperceptions created by special interest groups. I am asking my colleagues to look at John Ashcroft's real record, and at own words--in his confirmation hearings, and in his answers to the voluminous written questions--rather than relying on the press releases of issue advocates. If you only listen to interest groups, you might conclude that John Ashcroft would bend or ignore the law in order to put more guns in people's hands. But you would be wrong. As Missouri's Attorney General in 1977, John Ashcroft wrote Attorney General Opinion No. 50, in which he interpreted state law to prohibit prosecuting attorneys from carrying concealed weapons even while engaged in the discharge of official duties. This is hardly the kind of decision that someone bent on eliminating gun laws would want to reach. The special interest groups also want us to believe that John Ashcroft cannot enforce abortion laws because of his personal view that life begins at conception. But 20 years ago, as Missouri Attorney General, John Ashcroft had--and did not take--the opportunity to bend the law to favor his view. His 1981 Attorney General Opinion No. 5 barred the Missouri Division of Health from releasing statistics revealing the number of abortions performed by particular hospitals-- even though such statistics would help the pro-life movement make its case. Similarly, in Attorney General Opinion No. 127, dated September 23, 1980, Attorney General Ashcroft determined that a death certificate was not required for all abortions, despite his personal view that abortion terminates human life. Are these the kind of decisions that you would expect from an unrestrainable zealot? But the special interest groups do not stop there. They have also attacked John Ashcroft for his religious views, inferring that he would use his position to blur the lines between church and state. The fact is, however, that John Ashcroft has turned down several opportunities to do just that. In a 1977 Attorney General Opinion, No. 102, Ashcroft forbade public school districts from using federal education funds to benefit nonpublic including parochial school children. He did so even though the federal grant in question specifically allowed private and parochial school children to benefit. In similar decisions, Attorney General Ashcroft prevented the State of Missouri from providing transportation for nonpublic school students [Attorney General Opinion No. 148], and determined that a board of education lacked legal authority to allow the distribution of religious material on school property [Attorney General Opinion No. 8, February 8, 1979]. Don't expect to see these decisions listed in the press releases concerning John Ashcroft's ``extremist views.'' Another area of falsification concerns John Ashcroft's record on the enforcement of environmental laws. To hear some interest groups talk, you would think John Ashcroft wants to allow polluters to ignore the regulations that protect the planet. Again, his record shows the opposite. In Attorney General Opinion No. 123-84, Ashcroft declared that underground injection wells constitute pollution of the waters and are therefore subject to regulation by the Missouri Department of Natural Resources. He also opined that it would be unlawful to build or operate such a well without a permit from the Clean Water Commission. And in another opinion, Ashcroft decided that operators of surface mines must obtain a permit for each year that the mine was unreclaimed. In reaching this opinion, Ashcroft concluded that a continuous permit requirement facilitated Missouri's intention ``to protect and promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of this state, and to protect the natural resources of the state from environmental harm.'' This settlement was echoed in an opinion concerning recycling that John Ashcroft wrote in 1977. In Attorney General Opinion No. 189, Ashcroft decided that Missouri's cities and counties could require that all solid waste be disposed of at approved solid waste recovery facilities, rather than landfills. That opinion was based on the arguments that ``recycling of solid wastes results in fewer health hazards and pollution problems than does disposal of the same types of wastes in landfills'' and that ``public welfare is better served by burning solid wastes for generation of electricity, thus conserving scarce natural resources.'' I suggest, Mr. President, that these are not the words of a man who is intent on ignoring the law and destroying the environment. My final example, Mr. President, is on the topic of minority set asides. As you know, among the tactics of the anti-Ashcroft forces has been to bring baseless racial allegations. And, again, this is being done in indirect and subtle ways, implying that there is something hidden and unrestrainable about John Ashcroft that should concern minorities. Thus my colleagues will be pleased to learn that, as Missouri's Attorney General, John Ashcroft issued an opinion which cleared the way for the Missouri Clean Water Commission to award a 15 percent state grant to the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District to establish a minority business enterprise program. These examples--all of which pre-date the public smear campaign against John Ashcroft--demonstrate that Mr. Ashcroft has a record of enforcing the law. John Ashcroft has not undergone a confirmation conversion. Rather, he is a victim of interest group illusion. The artists behind the lobbying groups aligned against him have made his true record disappear in a cloud of smoke. And they are attempting to convince the public that his distinguished record of advocacy as a legislator is a straitjacket from which he cannot escape. But let me tell you what I see in the crystal ball. John Ashcroft is going to be an excellent attorney general. He is going to enforce the laws of this land fairly and forcefully. He will do so even when he might have written the law differently as a legislator. Mr. President, the issues that have been raised in objection to Senator Ashcroft's nomination are largely policy issues. There is no objection on his qualifications, his credentials, or his integrity. The attempt to paint him as extremist on policy grounds is countered effectively by his five elections to statewide office in Missouri, and his elections to head the National Association of Governors and the National Association of Attorneys General. Mr. President, John Ashcroft is qualified, not extreme on policy, but his policy positions are largely irrelevant because he has demonstrated that he understands his role as law enforcer, as distinguished from that of a policy advocate. I hope we will give him the benefit of the doubt if any doubt exists. I believe he will enforce the laws even-handedly and be a fine Attorney General. Mr. President, I would also like to respond to the issue of whether there have been religious attacks on Senator Ashcroft. Article VI of our Constitution, while requiring that Officers of the government swear to support the Constitution, assures us that ``no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' I fear that with regard to the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States, we are coming very close to violating the spirit, if not the letter of that assurance. Mr. President, John Ashcroft has been attacked as a dangerous zealot by many of his opponents, who suggest that his faith will require him to violate the law, or as a liar who cannot be trusted when he says he will uphold the law, even when he disagrees with it, as he has in similar circumstances in the past. I think the corrosive attacks on a qualified nominee because of his religious beliefs not only weakens our constitutional government, but also undermines the ability of citizens in our democracy to engage in a meaningful dialog with each other. When such attacks are made on the ground that a man's faithful conviction will prevent him from discharging the duties of his office, whole segments of our democracy are disenfranchised, and the American heritage of religious tolerance is betrayed. Let me point to just a few instances of these amazing attacks on Senator Ashcroft, made on largely religious grounds, since he was nominated. Let me begin with the testimony of Professor James M. Dunn, who testified at our Senate hearings as an expert on religion issues. I begin here because Professor Dunn is the most explicit in his religious attack on Senator Ashcroft. Professor Dunn says explicitly what others have coyly and carefully implied. He says, and I quote what is essentially the thesis statement of his testimony before the Judiciary Committee: ``the long history of Senator Ashcroft's identification with and approval of the political agenda of religious, right-wing extremism in this country convinces me that he is utterly unqualified and must be assumed to be unreliable for such a trust.'' Let me quote that point again, ``the long history of Senator Ashcroft's identification with and approval of . . . religious, right- wing extremism in this country convinces [Professor Dunn] that he is utterly unqualified and must be assumed unreliable for such a trust.'' That is about as baldly as the matter can be put, John Ashcroft is ``utterly unqualified'' and ``unreliable'' because of his ``religious, right-wing extremism.'' As if the name-calling were not enough, to make this an even more stunning assertion, the case Professor Dunn offers to prove this perceived ``extremism'' is that John Ashcroft was the ``principal architect'' of the so-called ``charitable choice'' legislation which was passed by the Congress and signed by President Clinton in 1996. To suggest that duly passed legislation, adopted by two branches of government controlled by different political parties is outside the mainstream is simply ludicrous, and suggests that the one outside the mainstream is not Senator Ashcroft, but rather his critics. This is a point that could be made on a number of policy fronts. Well, I am disappointed when policy disagreements deteriorate into name-calling, but considering the source I am particularly disappointed. I would hope that the United States Senate would never countenance such attacks in the consideration of this, or any other, nominee. I hope no weight will be given to such intemperate vitriol, nor more guarded attacks made in the same spirit. And I hope that none of my colleagues would join in such attacks, whether explicitly stated or couched in more careful language. But I am glad that at least Professor Dunn's clear statement can put to rest the question of whether Senator Ashcroft is being attacked in part on his religious beliefs. Dunn is not alone, either. For example, Barry Lynn, of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, in attacking Senator Ashcroft's nomination also cites charitable choice-- again, a law adopted by two branches of government controlled by two different parties--as an instance of Ashcroft's ``extreme views.'' And to underscore the broader point, Lynn points to the apparently decisive fact that ``Religious Right leaders find Ashcroft's fundamentalist Christian world view and his far-right political outlook appealing.'' Let us be clear here: the charge is guilt by association with religious people. As a number of my colleagues have suggested that the nominee might want to apologize for some of his associations or take the opportunity to dissociate himself from them, I would invite my colleagues to show a similar indignation for these attacks on people of faith, and dissociate themselves from these intolerant statements, unless they too would like their silence to be considered approval of such intolerance. Perhaps there needs to be greater sensitivity shown here. In addition to such explicit attacks, others attack Senator Ashcroft because his religious beliefs can be viewed as diverging from the legal results favored by far left liberal interest groups. For example, in the area of abortion, Ms. Gloria Feldt, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America criticized Senator Ashcroft for ``his belief that personhood begins at fertilization,'' saying that his view is ``one of the most extreme positions among those who oppose a woman's right to make her own reproductive choices, John Ashcroft actually believes that personhood begins . . . at the moment that sperm meets egg, the moment of fertilization.'' Well, call it extreme if you will--that word is a hobby horse of the far left liberal groups who oppose this nominee--but I understand that is the position of a number of churches, including the Catholic church. What is striking and chilling about this attack is the implication that anyone who holds this belief, including believing members of many churches, including the millions of believing Catholics, are unfit for the office of Attorney General because of their ``extreme positions.'' Surely, the Senate cannot take the position that faithful Americans who adhere to the pro-life doctrines of their churches, or even those who are pro- life on secular grounds, are unfit for office because of this view. Besides undermining our basic assumptions supporting the rule of law, this critique leads to a second, and more chilling result for religious tolerance, namely that of Senator's judging a nominee on the basis of their views of the nominee's religious faith and that faith's priorities. John Ashcroft responds to those who criticize him for his beliefs about abortion and the beginning of life, for example, by stating that his religion requires him to follow the law as written when he is filling an enforcement role, and his oath to do that will be binding on him. Those who challenge his veracity on this point are picking and choosing which of Senator Ashcroft's religious beliefs they feel are genuine or which religious principle has priority for him. I think this moves dangerously close to the line of imposing a religious test on a nominee. Perhaps we can ask a nominee the general question whether there is anything that would keep them from fulfilling their duties, but I do not think it appropriate to assume that someone is unfit for a job because we have preconceptions about what their sect believes and then criticize them if their answers do not fit our preconceptions of what they should believe. We need to tread very carefully here. And we would do well in such matters to give the benefit of the doubt to the nominee. We have certainly given the benefit of the doubt to the last President when we had qualms about the quality or credentials of some of his nominees, or their policy positions. But we owe a special duty to resolve doubts in favor of a nominee when questions stem from our assumptions about a nominee's religious beliefs, especially in the face of the nominee's contradiction of our assumptions. Mr. President, I think we would all do well to remember what we know about John Ashcroft, and not be influenced by a caricature painted by those extreme groups whose distortions of this honorable man are driven largely by their own narrow political interests. We know John Ashcroft is the sort of person whose word is his bond. And if his religion is relevant, it speaks for him as a person who will discharge the office of Attorney General with honor and dignity, with impartiality, according to the law. I think if we examine our hearts, we will find nothing that disqualifies John Ashcroft to be Attorney General. And we cannot, in good conscience, say that all those Americans who believe as he does are outside the mainstream of American opinion. No, they are solidly within the history of American pluralism and freedom, including religious freedom. We know John Ashcroft will faithfully discharge his duties and honor his oath of office no matter what the liberal pressure groups assert. I hope we will similarly honor our oaths, rejecting what has become in essence a religious test for this nominee, and vote to confirm this honorable man to the post of Attorney General.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague Senator Kennedy continues to mischaracterize Senator Ashcroft's record with regard to school desegregation. First, let me say that I do not in the least condone segregation in St. Louis or Kansas City or anywhere else. It is a shameful legacy that must be dealt with appropriately. Second, while the costs of the desegregation program were exorbitant this is not the only criticism to be made of the plans. The primary argument repeatedly made by Senator Ashcroft is that the state was never found liable for an inter-district violation. Senator Kennedy refers to an 8th circuit decision that he argues found the State of Missouri guilty of an inter-district violation. But a circuit court cannot make such a factual finding. Rather this is a finding that must be made by the trial court. The fact that the State was never found liable for an inter-district violation is shown by the fact that throughout 1981 and 1982 the parties were preparing for a trial on the very question of inter- district liability. So again, I emphasize that it is true and correct to say that the State was never found liable for an inter-district violation. Although the State was not found liable for an inter-district violation it was required by the district court to pay for a settlement reached by the suburbs and the City of St. Louis. This order by the district court was likely unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Milliken. Opposing these court orders for a plan that was constitutionally suspect, expensive, and ineffective, does not make Senator Ashcroft an opponent of desegregation. Indeed, the plan as implemented has been a dismal failure. Test scores actually declined from 1990 to 1995. Scores on the Stanford Achievement Test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at a time when the national mean was 50. And the graduation rate has remained around a dismal 30 percent. He has repeatedly stated the opposite position. To question Senator Ashcroft's integrity over such a complicated and controversial issue is to seriously distort his record and disbelieve his sworn testimony. Senator Ashcroft acted with great probity as representative for the State of Missouri. He supports integration and deplores racism.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I wish to discuss some civil rights issues surrounding the nomination of Senator Ashcroft to be Attorney General. At the hearings and in supplemental questions, my colleagues have raised issues concerning Senator Ashcroft's plans for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice should he be confirmed as Attorney General. Let me say that I am confident that Senator Ashcroft will fight for the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. He believes that everyone deserves an opportunity to succeed and that those at the bottom of our society may need a helping hand. Senator Ashcroft strongly supports ``affirmative access'' programs. As he testified, ``We can expand the invitation for people to participate aggressively so that no one is denied the capacity to participate simply because they didn't know about the opportunities. We can work on education, which is the best way for people to have access to achievement.'' Senator Ashcroft wants to encourage achievement and access to achievement. He wants to avoid what President Bush called the ``soft bigotry of low expectations'' that fuels many race-conscious programs. It is true that Senator Ashcroft is skeptical about government programs that categorize people by race. Many of these programs would be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena. That decision stated that all governmental racial classifications should be subject to strict scrutiny, that is such classifications must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court made clear that there was no such thing as a ``benign'' racial classification, and that the government may treat people differently because of their race for only the most compelling reason. This view of governmental racial classifications comports with the development of constitutional protections for civil liberties. Senator Ashcroft is solidly with the Supreme Court on this issue. Some of my colleagues and certain special interest groups have especially questioned Senator Ashcroft's ability to support and defend civil liberties because he opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Well, all but one Republican in the Judiciary Committee opposed this nominee. Let me say that I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee and the difficult circumstances in which his family came to this country, worked hard, and realized the American dream. Despite this high personal regard, I was deeply concerned about Mr. Lee's nomination because much of his career was devoted to preserving constitutionally suspect race-conscious public policies that ultimately sort and divide citizens by race. At the time of his hearings, it was clear that he would have us continue down the road of racial spoils, a road on which Americans are seen principally through the looking glass of race. As the Supreme Court has held, that would be unconstitutional. Indeed, it is now clear that we were right to oppose the nomination of Mr. Lee. Over the Senate's objections, President Clinton made a recess appointment of Mr. Lee to head the Civil Rights Division. His record has been one of pursuing constitutionally suspect, race-based policies at great cost to civil liberties. Under Mr. Lee's leadership, the Civil Rights Division has waged a war against testing standards in public sector employment based on what he considers to be the ``adverse impact'' of such testing. He has repeatedly sought to replace objective hiring processes with devices designed to boost minorities. In 1998, a federal judge, a Carter-appointee, assessed an unprecedented $1.8 million attorney fee award against the Civil Rights Division for a lawsuit against the city of Torrance, California. The Judge found the suit ``frivolous, unreasonable and without foundation.'' Despite this embarrassment, the Division continues to argue that using test results and hiring those who score best on the test is, in the words of one civil rights division deputy, ``the worst possible way to select applicants.'' Furthermore, under Mr. Lee, the Civil Rights Division has continued the legal challenge to Proposition 209, a measure that prohibited government discrimination of Californians on the basis of race, gender, or national origin. These suits continue despite the fact that Proposition 209 has repeatedly been upheld by federal courts. Finally, under Bill Lann Lee, the Division continued to defend the federal contract set-aside struck down by the Supreme Court in Adarand. At the time of Mr. Lee's nomination I made a lengthy speech on this floor. I regret that Mr. Lee's tenure has shown that my concerns were not unfounded. Mr. Lee's actions show that he was unable to distinguish the substantive role of being a law enforcer for all citizens from being a private activist litigator charged with pushing the limits of the law. Senator Ashcroft's principled opposition to Mr. Lee has been vindicated over time. Not only was Mr. Lee an activist, but he continued to pursue his activist agenda once in a position of trust for all Americans. The signs that he would do this were clear at his hearings at which he narrowly defined the rule in Adarand and could not distinguish cases that he would bring as Assistant Attorney General from those he brought in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. By contrast, Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly distinguished his role as a legislator from that of the Attorney General. He understands that his political advocacy gets checked at the door of the Department of Justice. Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly stated that he would enforce the law as it exists to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. He is committed to defending the constitutional rights of all individuals and has testified that he will make the enforcement of civil rights one of his topmost priorities. As Senator Ashcroft stated, ``My highest priority is to ensure that the Department of Justice lives up to its heritage of enforcing the rule of law, and in particular, guaranteeing legal rights for the advancement of all Americans. . . . [O]ne of my highest priorities at the Department will be to target the unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.'' Senator Ashcroft will be a faithful guardian of our civil liberties, and it is for this reason and many others that I wholeheartedly support his nomination to be Attorney General. Mr. President, some claim that Senator Ashcroft will not uphold the law with regard to abortion. I think it would be appropriate at this time to set the record straight on John Ashcroft's record and commitments regarding abortion-- an issue we have heard a lot about during this confirmation process. While Senator Ashcroft's critics have spared nothing in their attempts to distort his record and create fear, Senator Ashcroft's record over 25 years as a public servant, and his testimony before the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing, demonstrate his lifelong commitment to the rule of law and his respect for the uniquely different roles of a legislator and a law enforcer. Senator Ashcroft has proven that he can objectively interpret and enforce the law--even where the law may diverge from his personal views on policy. His record and character demonstrate that he can be, as he has pledged, ``law oriented and not results oriented.'' Contrary to the fear-mongering of his critics, Senator Ashcroft will enforce the law protecting a woman's right to an abortion. He was very straightforward in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee when he stated that, in his view, Roe versus Wade is settled law and that the Supreme Court's decisions upholding Roe ``have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic.'' He said he would enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. When asked whether he would seek to change the Supreme Court's interpretation of the law, Senator Ashcroft stated that ``it is not the agenda of the President-elect to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe. And as his Attorney General, I don't think it could be my agenda to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe.'' He also stated that as Attorney General, it wouldn't be his job to ``try and alter the position of the administration.'' Senator Ashcroft clearly recognized the importance of not devaluing ``the currency'' of the Solicitor General's Office by taking matters to the Supreme Court on a basis the Court has already stated it does not want to entertain. He noted that in this way, ``accepting Roe and Casey as settled law is important, not just to this arena, but important in terms of the credibility of the Department.'' He said he would give advice based upon sound legal analysis, not ideology or personal beliefs. He made a commitment that ``if the law provides something that is contrary to my ideological belief, I would provide them with that same best judgment of the law.'' From Senator Ashcroft, those are not just words. Throughout his career, he has demonstrated that he can do just that. For example, as Missouri Attorney General, Senator Ashcroft did not let his personal opinion on abortion cloud his legal analysis. He protected the confidentiality of abortion records maintained by the Missouri Department of Health--even when they were requested by pro- life groups. Likewise, when asked to determine whether a death certificate was required for all abortions, regardless of the age of the fetus, Attorney General Ashcroft--despite his personal view that life begins at conception--issued an opinion that Missouri law did not require any type of certificate if the fetus was 20 weeks old or less. His legal analysis was fair and objective and unaffected by what his policy views may have been. There has also been, what I consider, unfounded skepticism over whether Senator Ashcroft would vigorously enforce clinic access and antiviolence statutes. Being pro-life is not inconsistent with opposing violence at clinics. The primary focus of the opposition has been the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of ``FACE''. Senator Ashcroft supports the FACE law, and always has. Senator Ashcroft testified specifically on how he would enforce FACE and other clinic access and antiviolence laws. He stated clearly that he would enforce these laws ``vigorously'', that he would investigate allegations ``thoroughly'' and that he would devote resources to these cases on a ``'priority basis.'' He further stated that he would maintain the appropriate task forces which have been created to facilitate enforcement of clinic access and antiviolence statutes. These statements are totally consistent with Senator Ashcroft's long record of speaking out against violence and his belief that the first amendment does not give anyone the right to ``violate the person, safety, and security'' of another. Senator Ashcroft has always spoken out against clinic violence and other forms of domestic terrorism. He has written to constituents about his strong opposition to violence and his belief that, regardless of his personal views on abortion, people should be able to enter abortion clinics safely. He voted for Senator Schumer's amendment to the bankruptcy bill that made debts incurred as a result of abortion clinic violence non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. Senator Ashcroft has always condemned criminal violence at abortion clinics--or anywhere for that matter--and believes people who commit these acts of violence and intimidation should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. As Attorney General he'll do just that. Access to contraceptives is another area that I think Senator Ashcroft has been unfairly criticized. His critics make dire predictions about the future that are totally unsupported by Senator Ashcroft's testimony. Senator Ashcroft could not have testified any more clearly on the issue of contraception. He stated that: ``I think individuals who want to use contraceptives have every right to do so . . . [and] I think that right is guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.'' He also testified that he would defend current laws should they be attacked. What more can he say? Is there anything a pro- life nominee could say to please the pro-abortion interest groups? Senator Ashcroft's opponents take great pains to say that they do not oppose him on ideological grounds. Well you could have fooled me. Their argument is that someone who has been active in advocating a particular policy position cannot set that aside and enforce the law fairly. I don't believe they can be serious. Does this mean that a person of character and integrity who had been active in the pro-choice movement could never be Attorney General? And what about the death penalty? Could we have no future Attorney General, regardless of how honest and well-qualified, who opposed the death penalty? Of course not. In fact, Republicans voted to confirm Janet Reno, despite her personal opposition to the death penalty, because she said she could still enforce the law even though she disagreed with it. If this is not about ideology, then we should get to the business of confirming Senator Ashcroft. He has given strong and specific assurances to the Senate on abortion and other questions. These assurances are backed up by his proven record as Missouri attorney general and Governor. Most importantly, they are backed up by Senator Ashcroft's personal integrity and decency--characteristics he holds as is known personally by almost every Member of this body. Members know John Ashcroft is a man of his word--it's time that they act on it and confirm him as Attorney General. Mr. President, some have criticized Senator Ashcroft's handling of voter registration in Missouri. Some of my colleagues have charged that as Governor, John Ashcroft essentially blocked two bills that would have required the city of St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners to deputize private voter registration volunteers. These bills were opposed by both Democrats and Republicans in St. Louis. Opposition included the bipartisan St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, the St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Tom Villa, and St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach. Tom Villa was a noted Democratic leader, and St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach was a Democrat who was the prosecutor in the St. Louis area. All of these people opposed the legislative plan. The recommendations of these officials was one of the reasons that John Ashcroft vetoed the bills. It was insinuated during the hearings that these actions were taken out of some kind of partisan or racial motivation, because the city of St. Louis is predominantly black and Democratic. But this implication is seriously discredited by the history of voter registration in St. Louis and earlier Federal court cases. The city board has a long history of refusing to deputize private voter registration deputies, long before John Ashcroft appointed anyone to that board. Indeed, in 1981 a lawsuit was filed against the members of the St. Louis board concerning the failure to deputize voter registration deputies. The Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri explicitly rejected charges of racial animus. The court found that the board properly refused to deputize volunteers to prevent fraud and ensure impartiality and administrative efficiency. Moreover, these conclusions were sustained by the eighth circuit, in an opinion by Judge McMillan, a prominent African-American jurist. Some have also claimed that then-Governor Ashcroft refused to appoint a diverse group of commissioners to the election board. This is simply untrue. Mr. Jerry Hunter, the former labor secretary of Missouri, testified that Senator Ashcroft worked hard to increase black representation on the St. Louis City Election Board, but his efforts were stalled by State senators. Mr. Hunter testified that, ``Governor Ashcroft's first black nominee for the St. Louis City Election Board was rejected by the black State senator, because that person did not come out of his organization.'' When then-Governor Ashcroft came up with a second black attorney, this candidate was also rejected by two black State senators. As Mr. Hunter stated, ``[F]rom the beginning, any efforts to make changes in the St. Louis City Election Board were forestalled because the state senators wanted people from their own organization.'' Apparently for these State senators the political spoils system was more important than the voters of St. Louis. Finally, my colleagues imply that these voter registration issues will make Senator Ashcroft less able to deal with allegations of voting improprieties resulting from the Florida vote in the Presidential election. Yet Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly testified, ``I will investigate any alleged voting rights violation that has credible evidence. . . . I have no reason not to go forward, and would not refuse to go forward for any reason other than a conclusion that there wasn't credible evidence to pursue the case.'' Mr. President, a number of my colleagues have continued to express concerns about Senator Ashcroft's actions with regard to conducting a telephone interview with a magazine called Southern Partisan. Their concern is what message that interview might have sent to the country. It is clear, however, that Senator Ashcroft has forthrightly and forcefully condemned racism and discrimination, and he has left no doubt or ambiguity regarding his views on that matter. During his confirmation hearings, Senator Ashcroft said, ``Let me make something as plain as I can make it. Discrimination is wrong. Slavery was abhorrent. Fundamental to my belief in freedom and liberty is that these are God-given rights.'' And in his responses to written questions, he said, ``I reject racism in all its forms. I find racial discrimination abhorrent, and against everything that I believe in.'' It is clear to me that John Ashcroft believes in equal treatment under the law for everyone. He believes in it, and he has committed to fight to make it a reality for all Americans. Now, as to the magazine itself, Senator Ashcroft contritely admitted that he does not know very much about it. He confessed that he should have done more research about it before talking to them. And he said that he did not intend his telephone interview--or any other interview he has participated in during his career--as an automatic endorsement of the editorial positions of those publications. John Ashcroft went even further than that. He said, ``I condemn those things which are condemnable'' about Southern Partisan magazine. This was a strong statement against any unacceptable ideas discussed in that publication. And it was the strongest statement possible from someone who did not personally know the facts. Despite Senator Ashcroft's contriteness and strong words, some Senators and interest groups have demanded that Senator Ashcroft go out on a limb and add his derision based upon an acceptance at face value of all the negative allegations concerning that magazine. In my opinion, Mr. President, this led to one of the most profound moments of the confirmation hearings. A member of the committee pushed Senator Ashcroft to label the Southern Partisan magazine as ``racist''--even after Senator Ashcroft explained that he did not know whether that was true. The profound part was John Ashcroft's response. He said, ``I know they've been accused of being racist. I have to say this, Senator: I would rather be falsely accused of being a racist than to falsely accuse someone else of being a racist.'' This exchange tells volumes about Senator Ashcroft's moral character, deep sense of fairness, and his fitness for the office of Attorney General. It would have been a lot easier for him just to say, ``Yes, I agree with anyone who uses that term about someone else.'' Doing so would have saved him from further bashing by the committee and the press. It would have been politically expedient. But John Ashcroft choose to take the high road, not to heap disdain onto something he didn't know about just because it would have suited his interests to do so. This was a vivid example of good judgment and good character. This is not to say that John Ashcroft defended anything about the magazine. Clearly he did not. In fact, when Senator Biden asked him whether the magazine was condemnable because it sells T-shirts that imply that Lincoln's assassin did a good thing, he answered: ``If they do that, I condemn'' it. And he clarified that ``Abraham Lincoln is my favorite political figure in the history of this country.'' What John Ashcroft did was state his absolute intolerance for racism and bigotry, and he did so honestly without creating a straw man, a scapegoat, or a fall guy. I think we need to ask anyone who is not satisfied with John Ashcroft's answers what they really want. What do his accusers think justice is? I surely hope that no one in this body would say that justice means the knee-jerk condemnation of things they do not know about, so long as that condemnation is politically expedient. Mr. President, I think this issue has shed light on why John Ashcroft will be a fair and principled Attorney General. As he told the Judiciary Committee, ``I believe racism is wrong. I repudiate it. I repudiate racist organizations. I'm not a member of any of them. I don't subscribe to them. And I reject them.'' These are straightforward words from an honest man. I look forward to having such a man running our Department of Justice. Mr. President, I heard one of my colleagues today criticize Senator Ashcroft's view of the second amendment. While I disagree with these vague criticisms, I do believe that one of the biggest challenges that Senator Ashcroft will face as Attorney General is to increase the prosecution of federal gun crimes. Where there is little consensus in Congress regarding new gun control legislation, there is widespread consensus that current gun laws can and should be prosecuted more vigorously. While the Clinton administration has increased the regulation of licensed gun dealers, it has not increased the prosecution of Federal gun crimes in a like manner. For example: Between 1992 and 1998, prosecutions of defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony dropped nearly 50 percent, from 7.045 to approximately 3,800. It is a Federal crime to possess a firearm on school grounds, but the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only eight cases under this law in 1998, even though more than 6,000 students brought guns to school. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only five such cases in 1997. It is a Federal crime to transfer a firearm to a juvenile, but the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases under this law in 1998 and only five in 1997. It is a Federal crime to transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon, but the Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only four cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997. As his testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee made clear, Senator Ashcroft will reverse this trend and make gun prosecutions a priority. In the Senate, John Ashcroft was one of the leaders in fighting gun crimes. For example, in response to the decline in gun prosecutions by the Justice Department, Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to authorize $50 million to hire additional Federal prosecutors and agents to increase the Federal prosecution of criminals who use guns. In addition, Senator Ashcroft authored legislation to prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips. The Senate overwhelmingly passed the Ashcroft juvenile assault weapons ban in May of 1999. Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation that prohibits any person convicted of even misdemeanor acts of domestic violence from possessing a firearm, and he voted for legislation to extend the Brady Act to prohibit persons who commit violent crimes as juveniles from possessing firearms. In order to close the so-called ``gun show loophole,'' Senator Ashcroft voted for legislation, which I authored, to require mandatory instant background checks for all firearm purchases at gun shows. Senator Ashcroft sponsored legislation to require a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for Federal gun crimes and for legislation to encourage schools to expel students who bring guns to school. Senator Ashcroft voted for the Gun-Free Schools Zone Act that prohibits the possession of a firearm in a school zone, and he voted for legislation to require gun dealers to offer child safety locks and other gun safety devices for sale. As a former state attorney general and president of the National Association of Attorneys General, Senator Ashcroft knows that criminal laws are useless if not enforced. Given his proven commitment to fighting gun violence, there can be little doubt that Attorney General Ashcroft will make gun prosecutions a priority for the Justice Department. Mr. President, I would like to address one more issue concerning Senator Ashcroft's position on gun enforcement. Some special-interest groups have made the ridiculous assertion that an Ashcroft Justice Department would not defend the constitutionality of certain gun laws. As Senator Ashcroft noted at his hearing, there is a longstanding policy for the Solicitor General's office to defend Federal statutes in court if there is a reasonable basis for doing so. In other words, the Justice Department will defend Federal statutes even if that particular administration does not agree with the statute as a matter of policy. This longstanding policy applies to all Federal statutes, except those which infringe on the prerogatives of the President. This longstanding policy promotes the integrity and the consistent administration of Federal law. At his confirmation hearing, in response to Senator Kennedy, Senator Ashcroft pledged to ``vigorously defend'' the constitutionality of the ban on possession of firearms by persons convicted of domestic violence. In fact, Senator Ashcroft voted for the legislation that prohibited persons convicted of domestic violence from possessing firearms. And in response both to Senators Feinstein and Kennedy, Senator Ashcroft pledged to maintain the Justice Department's position of defending the constitutionality of the assault weapons ban. In short, Senator Ashcroft made clear that the Justice Department would defend and enforce Federal gun laws whether or not he agreed with such laws as a matter of policy. Senator Ashcroft's record as Missouri attorney general supports his pledge to defend and enforce gun laws regardless of his personal beliefs. For example, as the attorney general of Missouri, John Ashcroft issued an opinion which interpreted state law to prohibit prosecuting attorneys from carrying concealed weapons, even though some prosecuting attorneys conducted their own investigations and faced dangerous situations. This is a classic example of John Ashcroft upholding the law even when he did not agree with it. In short, John Ashcroft is a man of integrity and great ability. With John Ashcroft as Attorney General, I am confident that the Justice Department will enforce Federal gun laws with unprecedented zeal.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, another topic that keeps being brought up again and again is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge Ronnie White. I am concerned that some of my colleagues continue to denigrate Senator Ashcroft for his involvement in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. It has been said that Senator Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record and wrongly painted him as pro-criminal and anti-law enforcement. But there were many reasons to vote against confirmation for Judge White. In fact, every Republican in the Senate did so. I have reviewed Judge White's record and several of his dissenting opinions in death penalty cases, and I can understand Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White's nomination to the federal bench. For instance in the Johnson case, the defendant was convicted on four counts of first-degree murder for killing three officers and the wife of the sheriff. Johnson was sentenced to death on all counts. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Judge White dissented arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge White thought that Johnson deserved further opportunity to present a defense based on post-traumatic stress disorder. But the majority showed that here was no credible evidence that Johnson suffered from this disorder. Rather, it was clear that defense counsel had fabricated a story that was quickly disproved at trial. For instance, defense counsel stated that Johnson had placed a perimeter of cans and strings and had deflated the tires of his car. At trial, testimony revealed that police officers had taken these actions, not the defendant. Further, Congressman Kenneth Hulshof, the prosecutor in the Johnson case testified at Senator Ashcroft's hearings that it was almost impossible to make out an argument for ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant ``hired counsel of his own choosing. He picked from our area in mid-Missouri what . . . I referred to as a dream team.'' Judge White has every right to pen a dissent in Johnson and other cases involving the death penalty. Similarly, every Senator has the duty to evaluate these opinions as part of Judge White's judicial record. And that's just what Senator Ashcroft did. At no time did Senator Ashcroft derogate Judge White's background. I consider Judge White to be a decent man with an impressive personal background. He has accomplished a great deal and come up from humble beginnings. But his record of dissenting in death penalty cases was sufficiently troubling to cause Senator Ashcroft and others to oppose the nomination. Many of my colleagues have impugned Senator Ashcroft's motives for voting against Judge White. But Judge White's nomination was strongly opposed by many of Senator Ashcroft's constituents and also by major law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association and the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs. Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by Johnson, testified, ``I opposed Judge White's nomination to the federal bench, an I asked Senator Ashcroft to join me because of Judge White's opinion on a death penalty cease. . . in his opinion, Judge White urged that Johnson be given a second chance at freedom. I cannot understand his reasoning. I know that the four people killed were not given a second chance.'' Finally, many of my colleagues have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White was underhanded and done with stealth. Well, Senator Ashcroft voted against Judge White's nomination in committee. He expressed his disapproval at that time. If he had held up the nomination in committee without allowing it to proceed to the floor he would have been criticized for delay. Indeed, Senator Boxer pleaded during a debate about several judges including Ronnie White, I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all things that ace good in our country, give people a chance. If you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It is wrong. You would not do it to a friend.--Cong. Rec. S. 11871, Oct. 4, 1999. Thus, Senator Ashcroft was between a rock and a hard place as to how to raise his legitimate concerns about Judge White. Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity, one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General that we have ever seen. His opposition to Judge White was principled and in keeping with the proper exercise of the advice and consent duty of a senator. I regret that we have needed to revisit this issue at such great length. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. HATCH. I rightfully understand that. If the Senator will speak for 10 minutes or less, we would appreciate it.

Mr. HATCH. I believe Senator Brownback was next.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, since we have a lull, I will take a few moments to make some points I think need to be made in light of some of the statements that have been made. We have been placing matters in the Record all day, and hopefully people will read the Record and realize some of the arguments that have been made are not only inconsequential but really not right. Let me rise today to address some of the most common criticisms directed against Senator Ashcroft. Certain allegations have surfaced again and again, and they misrepresent Senator Ashcroft's record and personal character. I will address some of the most invidious of these charges. The primary criticism cited by my colleagues in opposition to Senator Ashcroft are his involvement with school desegregation and his actions taken against the nominations of Ronnie White and Bill Lann Lee. First, let me address the criticisms made against Senator Ashcroft's role in the school desegregation cases in St. Louis and Kansas City. There has been a significant distortion of his role in these cases and there are some things that I would like to make clear. First, John Ashcroft supports integration. He is not against desegregation and said so repeatedly during the four days of hearings and in response to numerous written questions on the subject. Senator Ashcroft testified, ``I have always opposed segregation. I have never opposed integration. I believe that segregation is inconsistent with the 14th amendment's guarantee of equal protection. I supported integrating the schools.'' Senator Ashcroft is deeply committed to civil rights and has stated that he intends to make this one of his top priorities if confirmed as Attorney General. Second, all of Senator Ashcroft's actions with regard to desegregation occurred in his role as attorney general, as the legal representative of the State of Missouri. As the State attorney general he was required to defend the interest of the State, his client. The State opposed voluntary desegregation because it would lead to incredible costs for the State--estimates put the total cost of desegregation at an incredible $1.8 billion to the State. To put this in perspective, Missouri's fiscal year 2001 budget is $17 billion. At that time it was much less. In other words, he wanted to prevent, as did virtually everybody in government, a judicial raid on the state treasury, something that all of us ought to be concerned about. Indeed, the combined costs of the St. Louis and Kansas City desegregation plans have been higher than the costs of desegregation in all the other states combined, with the exception of California. Moreover, the way the plan was structured most of the money was funneled to the white suburbs. In 1996, when the total cost of the program was $1.3 billion, only between $100 and $200 million went to the St. Louis schools. That doesn't sound like desegregation to me. Yet that is what these liberals have been arguing for. The results of these court-ordered remedies have been truly unimpressive. For instance, test scores actually went down from 1990 to 1995. Scores on the Stanford Achievement Test went from 36.5 to 31.1 at a time when the national mean was 50. It doesn't sound like very good desegregation to me. The graduation rate has remained around an abysmal 30 percent. And as far as actual desegregation, the percentage of African-American students in the St. Louis schools has remained almost identical to what it was when the plan started, about 80 percent. Yet our liberal friends, both in this body and in the outside groups, would have you believe Senator Ashcroft is doing a terrible thing against desegregation and against integration. And they just plain don't accept his very honest statements that he has always been for desegregation and for integration. He has never spoken against them. It has been suggested that then-Attorney General Ashcroft's lack of enthusiasm for this plan demonstrates insensitivity toward the needs of the students in St. Louis. It has been suggested that then-Attorney General Ashcroft's lack of enthusiasm for this plan demonstrates insensitivity toward the needs of the students in St. Louis. But given these unimpressive results and extraordinary costs, I think it seems perfectly understandable that many State officials from both political parties have consistently had doubts about this plan. Indeed, Senator Ashcroft's democratic successor as attorney general took the same position on behalf of the State of Missouri. Third, some of my colleagues have charged that Senator Ashcroft misrepresented his involvement with the desegregation cases. This is also a significant distortion of Senator Ashcroft's responses to a flurry of questions. The Missouri school desegregation cases are extremely complex and involve a variety of different factual and constitutional issues. Perhaps Senator Ashcroft made some preliminary statements that were incomplete, but when questioned further, he clarified his answers. Moreover, in an extended response to a written question, he fully detailed Missouri's liability and involvement with the case. Senator Ashcroft has acknowledged that the State was found liable for desegregation. However, the State was found liable only for an intra- district violation, that is a violation in the one district of St. Louis. The State was never at any time adjudged liable for an intra- district violation involving the St. Louis suburbs--this is the bottom line of a long and somewhat murky legal record. The fact that Missouri was never found to have committed an interdistrict violation is easily proved. Consider that throughout 1981 and 1982 the parties and the court were preparing for a trial on the very question of interdistrict liability. It goes without saying that a trial on the point would have been unnecessary if liability had already been determined. In fact there was never a trial on the interdistrict liability. This trial was averted because the suburban schools and the St. Louis Board of Education agreed to a consent decree. In fact, this settlement was hastened when the district court announced that it would have to consolidate city and county school districts if at trial liability is proved of an interdistrict violation. The threat of consolidating suburban and city school districts was enough to prompt the city and county to reach a settlement agreement, an agreement to which the State was not a party. The consent decree entered by the district court did not contain the necessary finding of liability for an interdistrict violation. Thus, a settlement was reached in which the State was required to pay for an inter-district remedy between the city and county although it had never been found liability of an inter-district violation. Missouri's arguments on appeal against the district court's order had a strong legal basis. The Supreme Court had previously held in Milliken that a district court must find an interdistrict violation before it can order an interdistrict remedy. Indeed, such a remedy must also be narrowly tailored to fit only the particular constitutional violation. There was no finding of liability here, much less a determination by the court that the settlement met constitutional requirements. Moreover, the State did not willfully refuse to comply with the district court's orders. What the district court ordered was for the parties to the litigation to enter into a voluntary plan for interdistrict transfers of students to suburban schools. But such a plan was an impossibility because the suburban school districts were necessary parties who were not before the court. No satisfactory plan was likely to be produced under those circumstances. Indeed, no successful plan was produced until the suburban schools were joined and threatened by the district court directly with being placed by the court into the same school district as the city schools. The district court did criticize the State, but it did not hold the State in contempt. Probably because the court realized that it had essentially ordered the State and other defendants to perform an impossibility. Finally, Senator Ashcroft has been criticized for being overly litigious in the desegregation cases. But an electronic search reveals that Senator Ashcroft was actually the least litigious of the attorneys general who represented the State during any significant portion of this litigation. During the 8 years that John Ashcroft was attorney general, there are 18 entries relating to this case. By comparison, during the 8 years William Webster was attorney general, there are 34 entries. And during the 7 years that Jay Nixon, a democrat, was attorney general, there are 22 entries. Then-Attorney General Ashcroft did bring several appeals to the district court's action. But this is understandable given that the courts never found the State liable for an inter-district violation. A very key point, by the way. Senator Ashcroft's position on behalf of the State was eventually vindicated in the Kansas City school desegregation litigation. That line of cases culminated in Missouri versus Jenkins--in which the Supreme Court held that an interdistrict violation is required before a Federal court can impose interdistrict remedies. In sum, Senator Ashcroft was a faithful advocate for the State of Missouri. He defended the interests of all state taxpayers through a series of legally justified appeals. The legal theories he advanced on behalf of the State were eventually vindicated by the Supreme Court. As Missouri attorney general he supported improved educational opportunities for children, not the failed and extremely expensive court-ordered remedies developed by the district court. Senator Ashcroft's actions contesting the details of a complicated court- ordered busing scheme does not mean that he opposed segregation. Quite to the contrary, Senator Ashcroft opposes segregation and supports integration, and he represented his client the State in good faith. Some remarks have been made about some of the judge's crusty remarks. For those of us who have been in litigation before the Federal courts, we are kind of used to those crusty remarks from time to time. Frankly, because one single Federal judge of the approximately 800 district and Federal judges in this country makes a crusty remark, that should not be interpreted as condemnation of John Ashcroft or any other litigant before the court, nor was there any indication of any kind of censure by the court or contempt proceedings. As a matter of fact, it did not happen. Yet there have been allusions here on the floor that there should have been contempt proceedings. Come on, the law is pretty clear. This has been distorted. It is really offensive to have it distorted in a way that flies in the way of true civil rights, a man who basically has stood up for civil rights throughout his lifetime. Another topic that has been brought up again and again is Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge Ronnie White. Mr. President, I am concerned that some of my colleagues continue to denigrate Senator Ashcroft for his involvement in the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. It has been said that Senator Ashcroft distorted Judge White's record and wrongly painted him as pro-criminal and antilaw enforcement. But there were many reasons to vote against confirmation for Judge White. In fact, every Republican did so. I have reviewed Judge White's record and several of his dissenting opinions in death penalty cases, and I can understand Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White's nomination to the Federal bench. For instance in the Johnson case, the defendant was convicted on four counts of first-degree murder for killing three officers and the wife of the sheriff. Johnson was sentenced to death on all counts. On appeal, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld the decision, but Judge White dissented arguing for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Judge White thought that Johnson deserved further opportunity to present a defense based on post-traumatic stress disorder. But the majority showed that there was no credible evidence that Johnson suffered from this disorder. Rather, it was clear that defense counsel had fabricated a story that was quickly disproved at trial. For instance, defense counsel stated that Johnson had placed a perimeter of cans and strings and had deflated the tires of his car. At trial, testimony revealed that police officers had taken these actions, not the defendant. Further, Congressman Kenneth Hulshof, the prosecutor in the Johnson case testified at Senator Ashcroft's hearings that it was almost impossible to make out an argument for ineffective assistance of counsel because the defendant ``hired counsel of his own choosing. He picked from our area in mid-Missouri what . . . I referred to as a dream team.'' Judge White has every right to pen a dissent in Johnson and other cases involving the death penalty. Similarly, every Senator has the duty to evaluate these opinions as part of Judge White's judicial record. And that's just what Senator Ashcroft did. At no time did Senator Ashcroft derogate Judge White's background. I consider Judge White to be a decent man with an impressive personal background. He has accomplished a great deal and came up from humble beginnings. But his record of dissenting in death penalty cases was sufficiently troubling to cause Senator Ashcroft and others to oppose the nomination. Some of our colleagues have impugned Senator Ashcroft's motives for voting against Judge White. But Judge White's nomination was strongly opposed by many of Senator Ashcroft's constituents and also by major law enforcement groups, including the National Sheriffs' Association and the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs. Sheriff Kenny Jones, whose wife and colleagues were killed by Johnson testified: I opposed Judge White's nomination to the federal bench, and I asked Senator Ashcroft to join me because of Judge White's opinion on a death penalty case . . . In his opinion, Judge White urged that Johnson be given a second chance at freedom. I cannot understand his reasoning. I know that the four people killed were not given a second chance. Finally, some of my colleagues have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Judge White was underhanded and done with stealth. Well, Senator Ashcroft voted against Judge White's nomination in committee. He expressed his disapproval at that time. If he had held up the nomination in committee without allowing it to proceed to the floor he would have been criticized for delay. Indeed, Senator Boxer pleaded during a debate about several judges including Ronnie White: I beg of you, in the name of fairness and justice and all things that are good in our country, give people a chance. If you do not think they are good, if you have a problem with something they said or did, bring it down to the floor. We can debate it. But please do not hold up these nominees. It is wrong. You would not do it to a friend. Thus, Senator Ashcroft was between a rock and a hard place as how to raise his legitimate concerns about Judge White. Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity, one of the most qualified nominees for Attorney General that we have ever seen. His opposition to Judge White was principled and in keeping with the proper exercise of the constitutional advice and consent duty of a Senator. I regret that we have needed to revisit this issue at such great length. Now, Mr. President, let me address one final issue that continues to come up. Some critics of Senator Ashcroft have stated that he distorted Bill Lann Lee's record when he was nominated to head the Civil Rights Division. But this is simply not the case. Mr. Lee had a noted record of promoting and preserving race-conscious policies of questionable constitutionality. Opposition to Mr. Lee was not limited to Senator Ashcroft--nine Republicans on the Judiciary Committee opposed this nominee, including myself. Let me say that I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee and the difficult circumstances in which his family came to this country, worked hard, and realized the American dream. Despite this high personal regard, I was deeply concerned about Mr. Lee's nomination because much of his career was devoted to preserving constitutionally suspect race-conscious public policies that ultimately sort and divide citizens by race. At the time of his hearings, it was clear that he would have us continue down the road of racial spoils, a road on which Americans are seen principally through the looking glass of race. Senator Ashcroft's principled opposition to Mr. Lee was firmly based in the record. The signs that Mr. Lee would pursue an activist agenda were clear at his hearings. At that time he narrowly defined the rule in Adarand and could not distinguish cases that he would bring as Assistant Attorney General from those he brought in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. Some have alleged that Senator Ashcroft's opposition to Mr. Lee was based on mischaracterizations. But Senator Ashcroft did not distort Mr. Lee's testimony. When Mr. Lee stated the test of Adarand versus Pena he said that the Supreme Court considered racial preference programs permissible if ``conducted in a limited and measured manner.'' While this might be correct in a narrow sense, it purposefully misses the main point of the Court's fundamental holding that such race-conscious programs are presumptively unconstitutional. Mr. Lee might have stated that strict scrutiny was the standard articulated in Adarand; however, when he described the content of this standard it was far looser than what the Supreme Court delineated. A ``limited and measured manner'' is a standard far more lenient than the strict scrutiny standard of ``narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest.'' Mr. Lee's misleading description can properly be assailed as a fundamental mischaracterization of the spirit of the law. Senator Ashcroft has stated that he opposed Mr. Lee because of his record of advocacy and his distortion of precedent. These failures to properly interpret the law would have serious effects on Mr. Lee's ability to serve as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Senator Ashcroft's reasons for opposing Mr. Lee were amply supported by the record. By contrast to Mr. Lee, Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly distinguished his role as a legislator and advocate from that of the Attorney General. He understands that his political advocacy gets checked at the door of the Department of Justice. Senator Ashcroft has repeatedly stated that he would enforce the law as it exists to protect the civil liberties of all Americans. He is committed to defending the constitutional rights of all individuals and has testified that he will make the enforcement of civil rights one of his topmost priorities. As Senator Ashcroft stated, My highest priority is to ensure that the Department of Justice lives up to its heritage of enforcing the rule of law, and in particular, guaranteeing legal rights for the advancement of all Americans. . . . [O]ne of my highest priorities at the Department will be to target the unconstitutional practice of racial profiling. Senator Ashcroft's critics also allege that because Senator Ashcroft opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Senator Ashcroft will himself be unable to defend civil liberties. But this is an incredible and illogical leap. To oppose the race-conscious policies favored by Mr. Lee is to value the true principles of the civil rights movement--equality of opportunity for all Americans. At the hearings and in supplemental questions, my colleagues have raised issues concerning Senator Ashcroft's plans for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice should he be confirmed as Attorney General. Let me say that I am confident that Senator Ashcroft will fight for the civil rights and liberties of all Americans. He believes that everyone deserves an opportunity to succeed and that those at the bottom of our society may need a helping hand. Senator Ashcroft strongly supports ``affirmative access'' programs. As he testified, We can expand the invitation for people to participate aggressively so that no one is denied the capacity to participate simply because they didn't know about the opportunities. We can work on education, which is the best way for people to have access to achievement. Senator Ashcroft wants to encourage achievement and access to achievement. He wants to avoid what President Bush called the ``soft bigotry of low expectations'' that fuels many race-conscious programs. It is true that Senator Ashcroft is skeptical about government programs that categorize people by race. Some of these programs might be unconstitutional under the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand versus Pena. That decision stated that all governmental racial classifications should be subject to strict scrutiny, that is such classifications must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest. The Supreme Court made clear that there was no such things as a ``benign'' racial classification, and that the government may treat people differently because of their race for only the most compelling reason. This view of governmental racial classifications comports with the development of constitutional protections for civil liberties. Senator Ashcroft is solidly with the Supreme Court on this issue. We have no reason to doubt that Senator Ashcroft will work long and hard to defend the civil liberties of all Americans. These are the points that are repeatedly used to denigrate Senator Ashcroft's character and motivation. But when the facts are examined, these charges simply do not stick. Senator Ashcroft is a man of tremendous integrity and probity and I hope that we move quickly to confirm him.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will wait, I understand Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is coming over. Here she is now. I appreciate that courtesy.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President. I am pleased that the Judiciary Committee yesterday evening favorably reported the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be the next Attorney General of the United States. I look forward to a fair debate of Senator Ashcroft's qualifications and am hopeful that we could move to a vote on his confirmation this week. It is important that we confirm Senator Ashcroft as soon as possible so that the President has his Cabinet in place and he can move ahead with the people's agenda. John Ashcroft is no stranger to most of us in this body. We have served with him during his 6 years of service as the Senator representing Missouri, some had worked with him when he was Governor and some others had worked with him when he was the Attorney General of Missouri. In the Senate, he served on the Judiciary Committee with distinction over the past four years--working closely with members on both sides of the aisle. As a member of the committee, he proved himself a leader in many areas, including the fight against drugs and violence, the assessment of the proper role of the Justice Department, and the protection of victims' rights. But, having heard the relentless drumbeat of accusation after accusation in recent weeks, I can fairly say, in my view, that there has been an unyielding effort to redefine this man of unlimited integrity. Some have termed the statements made by John Ashcroft, during the nearly four days of hearings in the committee, a ``confirmation conversion''--``a metamorphosis.'' On the contrary. The true metamorphosis of John Ashcroft is in the misleading picture painted of him by narrow left-wing interest groups. In fact, I welcomed them to the committee, and said: We haven't seen you for 8 years. I think there is a lot to be garnered out of that statement. As my colleagues are well aware, John Ashcroft has an impressive 30- year record of loyal public service as a state attorney general, a two term Governor, and then--of course--as Senator, for the State of Missouri. I should also mention that as Missouri's attorney general, he was so well respected that he was elected by his peers across the nation to head the National Association of Attorneys General, and again as Governor, he was elected by this nation's governors to serve as the head of the National Governors' Association. That really defines John Ashcroft rather than some of the accusations that have been thrown against him in the Senate. I have said this before and I will say it again, of the sixty-seven Attorneys General we have had, only a handful even come close to having some of the qualifications that John Ashcroft brings in assuming the position of chief law enforcement officer of this great nation. The Department of Justice, of course, encompasses broad jurisdiction. It includes agencies ranging from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshal's Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the United States Attorneys, to the Bureau of Prisons. It includes, among other things, enforcement of the law in areas including antitrust, terrorism, fraud, money laundering, organized crime, drugs, and immigration. To effectively prevent and manage crises in these important areas, one thing is certain: we need, at the helm, a no-nonsense person with the background and experience of John Ashcroft. Those charged with enforcing the law of the nation must demonstrate both a proper understanding of that law and a determination to uphold its letter and spirit. This is the standard I have applied to nominees in the past, and this is the standard I am applying to John Ashcroft here today in my full-hearted support of his nomination to be the next Attorney General of the United States. During John Ashcroft's 30-year career in public service, he has worked to establish numerous things to keep Americans safe and free from criminal activities. For example, he has: (1) fought for tougher sentencing laws for serious crimes; (2) authored legislation to keep drugs out of the hands of children; (3) improved our nation's immigration laws; (4) protected citizens from fraud; (5) protected competition in business; (6) supported funding increases for law enforcement; (7) held the first hearings ever on racial profiling; (8) fought for victims' rights in the courts of law and otherwise; (9) helped to enact the violence against women bill; (10) supported provisions making violence at abortion clinics fines non-dischargeable in bankruptcy; (11) authored anti-stalking laws; (12) fought to allow women accused of homicide to have the privilege of presenting battered spouse syndrome evidence in the courts of law. On that point, I should add that as governor, he commuted the sentences of two women who did not have that privilege; (13) signed Missouri's hate crimes bill into law. I could go on and on. His record is distinguished. I am getting a little irritated that some even implied that he might be a racist, but all, including the judge for Ronnie White, said they do not believe he is a racist. In fact, he is not. His record proves he is not. I might add that his record proves that he is in the mainstream of our society. Senator Ashcroft appeared before the Judiciary Committee for two days and answered all questions completely, honestly and with the utmost humility. Over the inaugural weekend, he received over 400 questions. He completely answered these follow-up questions that the Senators both on and off the committee sent to him. He has testified and committed both orally and in writing that he will uphold the laws of the United States, regardless of his religious views on the policy which, within his constitutional duties as a Senator, he may have advocated changing. He understands his role as the chief law enforcement officer of this nation. Virtually every Senator on the committee and every Senator in this Senate has to admit he has the utmost integrity, honor, dignity, and decency. If that is true, why not give him the benefit of the doubt rather than the other way? We saw at the four days of hearings that even when he disagreed with the underlying policies, he has an undisputable record of enforcing the laws. This was the case with respect to abortion laws, gun laws, or laws relating to the separation of church and state. Mr. President, a great number of people have said to me that they are tired of living in fear. They want to go to sleep at night without worrying about the safety of their children or about becoming victims of crime themselves. As someone who both knows John Ashcroft as a person and who is familiar with his distinguished 30-year record of enforcing and upholding the law, I can tell you that I feel a great sense of comfort and a newfound security in the likely prospect of his confirmation to be our nation's chief law enforcement officer. Mr. President, as I told my committee colleagues last night, we have served with John Ashcroft, and we know that he is a man of integrity, committed to the rule of law and the Constitution. We know that he is a man of compassion, faith, and devotion to family. We know that he is a man of impeccable credentials and many accomplishments. Some have charged that we are asking that the Senate apply a different standard to John Ashcroft than other nominees because he was a member of this cherished body. Let me be clear. I am not asking nor advocating that a standard be applied to his nomination that is different than that which is applied to other nominees. I am simply saying that you have worked with him and know him to be a man of his word. He is not the man unfairly painted as an extremist by the left- wing activists who have reportedly threatened Senators in their re- election bids if they vote for his confirmation. They present a man that none of us really know. They have distorted his record and impugned his character and have exaggerated their case. I am saying that a nominee, especially one we all personally know to be a man of deep faith and integrity, deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt when he commits to us under oath that he will enforce and uphold the rule of law regardless of his personal or religious beliefs. Mr. President, that is the benefit we accorded General Reno, President Clinton's nominee 8 years ago. She was pro-abortion, she had said so. She was anti-death penalty, she had said so. On both of these issues, among others, she had a totally different ideological view than almost all of the Republican Senators serving at the time. But she committed to uphold the laws of the land, regardless of her personal views. and we accorded her the benefit of the doubt which I believe President Bush's nominee similarly deserves, especially since we all know him. I ask that we evaluate this man based on his record, his testimony, and based on your personal experiences with him. We know John Ashcroft is not an extremist. That is the image of him that has been painted through a vicious campaign by a well organized group of left-wing special interest activists. They have a right to be active. They have a right to complain. They have a right to find fault. They have a right to present their case. But they do not have a right to impugn a man's integrity, or distort his record, which I think they have done. Sometimes in life, though, the measure of a person is best seen in times of adversity. So it is with John Ashcroft who, after a difficult battle for something that meant a great deal to him--re-election to the Senate--resisted calls to challenge the outcome of that election. His own words during this difficult time say it best: Some things are more important than politics, and I believe doing what's right is the most important thing we can do. I think as public officials we have the opportunity to model values for our culture--responsibility, dignity, decency, integrity, and respect. And if we can only model those when it's politically expedient to do so, we've never modeled the values, we've only modeled political expediency. Contrary to what a few special interest groups with a narrow political agenda would have us believe, these are not the words of an extremist or a divisive ideologue. These are the words of a fine public servant who is a man of his word and of faith and who is willing to do the right thing, even when it means putting himself last. Mr. President, John Ashcroft, like many of us, is a man of strongly held views. I have every confidence, based on his distinguished record, that as Attorney General, he will vigorously work to enforce the law-- whether or not the law happens to be consistent with his personal views. Mr. President, As I asked my colleagues in the Judiciary Committee, I ask that in keeping with our promise to work in a bipartisan fashion, we reject the politics of division. If we want to encourage the most qualified citizens to serve in government, we must do everything we can to stop what has been termed the politics of personal destruction. This is not to say that we should put an end to an open and candid debate on policy issues. Quite the contrary: our system of government is designed to promote the expression of these differences and our Constitution protects that expression. But the fact is that all of us both Democrats and Republicans, know the difference between legitimate policy debate and unwarranted personal attacks promoted--and sometimes urged--by narrow interest groups. Mr. President, let me cite just one example of what I mean by the narrow interest group campaign of personal destruction. Many may have read, hopefully with disbelief and dismay, a New York Times report, the day following the release of the transcript of Senator Ashcroft's speech at the Bob Jones University, which read, ``the leader of a major liberal group opposing Mr. Ashcroft's nomination expressed disappointment that the comments were not much different from those many politicians offer in religious settings.'' The piece continued, quoting this ``leader'' as saying `` `[t]his, clearly, will not do it,' this person said of hopes that the speech might help defeat the nomination.'' Let me note that some opponents have charged that Senator Ashcroft's answers at the hearing and his written answers to the approximately 400 questions sent to him by Judiciary Committee members were evasive. Wrong. I don't know of any case where we had that many questions of a Cabinet official. Usually it is an insignificant number. Throughout, Senator Ashcroft has consistently and persuasively responded that he will enforce the law irrespective of his personal views. His long and distinguished record in Missouri supports his commitment to follow and observe the rule of law. But that record is ignored by his critics. For some of those looking to oppose him, he simply cannot do anything right. When he answers questions in detail to attempt to explain his record, he's termed evasive because he should have simply answered ``yes'' if he really meant it. When he answers a question with a simple and straightforward yes, he's accused of not confronting the issue completely. Let us be clear. John Ashcroft is strongly pro-life. He always has been as far as I know, and I expect he always will be. He is a deeply religious man--he always has been as far as I know, and I expect he always will be. He has strenuously committed to a policy of equal justice and opportunity for all--and has a long record which supports this commitment of these matters. But he opposed Mr. Hormel for an ambassadorship, as did a number of his colleagues; he opposed Bill Lann Lee, as did eight other Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, including myself; and he opposed Justice Ronnie White. This is the record upon which many paint John Ashcroft as a right wing extremist. I disagree. Let me simply conclude by repeating the words of John Ashcroft which I cited earlier. ``Some things are more important than politics, and I believe doing what's right is the most important thing we can do.'' I only hope that my colleagues will heed these words as they consider their vote in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote yes on this nomination. By the way, I am urging my colleagues to do what we did for Attorney General Reno: Give John Ashcroft the benefit of the doubt instead of taking the exact opposite tack, of which I think I have seen enough evidence. When Attorney General Reno came up, there were 2 days of hearings. In fact, there was only 1 day for Attorney General Dick Thornburgh. There were only 2 days for Attorney General Bill Barr, only 2 days for Janet Reno. In none of those cases did we allow right-wing groups to come in and attack the witness. We allowed them to submit statements, but we didn't go on and on trying to destroy the reputation of really good people. John Ashcroft is really good people. He is a decent, honorable, religious, thoughtful, kind man who has a reputation of being fair and honest. I personally resent those who try to say otherwise and try to impugn that reputation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, January 31, 2001 at 9:15 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a business/organizational meeting to elect the chairman and vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 31 at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing. The hearing is entitled ``California's Electricity Crisis and Implications for the West.''

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. It only affects the House and takes them out until next Tuesday.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 18, an adjournment resolution, which is at the desk. I further ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the National Trails System Act which would update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails and allow possible additions to them. The trails in question are the Oregon, the Mormon, the Pony Express and the California National Historic Trails. In 1978, the Oregon and Mormon trails were established by the National Trails System Act. At that time the language of the bill defined these trails as ``point to point,'' limiting them to one beginning point and one destination. The Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail at that time was defined as the route Brigham Young took in 1846 through Iowa and then to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. The Oregon Trail was defined narrowly as the route taken by settlers from Independence, Missouri, to Oregon City from 1841 to 1848. It, too, was limited to a single trail with only three variants. Later, in 1992, Congress passed an amendment for the establishment of the California and Pony Express National Historic Trails. This amendment broadened the possibility of trail variants for the California Trail and provided a more accurate depiction of the original trail. However, the legislation I am introducing today will provide additional authority for variations to these trails. To those of us in the West, these trails are the highways of our history. With this legislation, I hope to capture the stories made along the side roads, as well. In many cases, our most interesting and telling history was made along the variations of the main trails. Since the enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1978, there has been a great deal of support to broaden the Act to include these side roads to history. Not every pioneer company embarked on their journey from Omaha, Nebraska or Independence, Missouri. Tens of thousands of settlers began from other starting points. These trail variations and alternate routes show the ingenuity and adaptability of the poineers as they were forced to contend with inclement weather, lack of water, difficult terrain, and hostile Native American tribes. The variant routes taken by the pioneers tell important stories that would otherwise slip through the cracks under a strict interpretation of the National Trails System Act. The Act requires that comprehensive management and use plans be prepared for all historic trails. In 1981, such plans were completed for the Mormon and Oregon trails. Since that time, however, endless hours of research by the Park Service and trails organizations have produced a more complete picture of the westward expansion. The National Park Service has determined, however, that legislation is required to update the trails with this newfound history. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would authorize the study of further important additions to the California, Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, and Pony Express National Historic Trails and allow for a more complete story to be told of our history in the West. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce an amendment to the National Trails System Act which would update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails and allow possible additions to them. The trails in question are the Oregon, the Mormon, the Pony Express and the California National Historic Trails. In 1978, the Oregon and Mormon trails were established by the National Trails System Act. At that time the language of the bill defined these trails as ``point to point,'' limiting them to one beginning point and one destination. The Mormon Pioneer National Historic Trail at that time was defined as the route Brigham Young took in 1846 through Iowa and then to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. The Oregon Trail was defined narrowly as the route taken by settlers from Independence, Missouri, to Oregon City from 1841 to 1848. It, too, was limited to a single trail with only three variants. Later, in 1992, Congress passed an amendment for the establishment of the California and Pony Express National Historic Trails. This amendment broadened the possibility of trail variants for the California Trail and provided a more accurate depiction of the original trail. However, the legislation I am introducing today will provide additional authority for variations to these trails. To those of us in the West, these trails are the highways of our history. With this legislation, I hope to capture the stories made along the side roads, as well. In many cases, our most interesting and telling history was made along the variations of the main trails. Since the enactment of the National Trails System Act in 1978, there has been a great deal of support to broaden the Act to include these side roads to history. Not every pioneer company embarked on their journey from Omaha, Nebraska or Independence, Missouri. Tens of thousands of settlers began from other starting points. These trail variations and alternate routes show the ingenuity and adaptability of the poineers as they were forced to contend with inclement weather, lack of water, difficult terrain, and hostile Native American tribes. The variant routes taken by the pioneers tell important stories that would otherwise slip through the cracks under a strict interpretation of the National Trails System Act. The Act requires that comprehensive management and use plans be prepared for all historic trails. In 1981, such plans were completed for the Mormon and Oregon trails. Since that time, however, endless hours of research by the Park Service and trails organizations have produced a more complete picture of the westward expansion. The National Park Service has determined, however, that legislation is required to update the trails with this newfound history. That is why I am introducing this legislation today. This bill would authorize the study of further important additions to the California, Mormon Pioneer, Oregon, and Pony Express National Historic Trails and allow for a more complete story to be told of our history in the West. I thank the Senate for the opportunity to address this issue today, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today, I am introducing legislation that will allow all state accredited diabetes education programs to be reimbursed by the Medicare program. Currently, diabetes education programs that have state certification, as an alternative to being certified by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), are not eligible to receive Medicare reimbursement for their services. As a result, these deserving patients have more limited access to the important medical education that they need to control their diabetes effectively and to improve the quality of their health. This important health issue was brought to my attention by the Program Director of the Utah Diabetes Control Program. There are over 30 diabetes education programs in Utah that are either Utah certified or recognized by the American Diabetes Association. The majority of the education programs have only state certification; several are located in rural communities of Utah. It is important to emphasize, that in Utah, our state certification program meets or exceeds all national standards. These stringent state requirements include the submission of a detailed application, with the appropriate documentation that the diabetes education programs meet the various national standards. The Utah Diabetes Control Program staff also conduct on-site visits to all applying programs. After the completion of this extensive application process, the state staff collects follow-up data through the annual report process in order to assess program quality and diabetic patient outcomes. One notable concern that has been brought to my attention by the Utah Department of Health is that the American Diabetes Association charges $850 for state programs to apply for their ADA certification. The smaller and rural state diabetes education programs, which provide services to their patients, have indicated that the ADA fee is cost- prohibitive for them. It does not seem right to me that Medicare reimbursement for such programs is contingent on the ability of the program sponsor to pay a fee to the only accepted certifying entity. I understand that this problem is not unique to Utah, but is a significant issue across the country. All Medicare beneficiaries, regardless of where they live in America, should have access to these diabetes education programs that ultimately improve the quality of their lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I am very pleased to join with my friend Senator Baucus and many of our Finance Committee colleagues today in introducing legislation that would permanently extend the research and experimentation tax credit. Over the past 10 years, our nation has experienced the longest and strongest peacetime period of economic expansion in our history. Over this past decade, the standard of living for all Americans has increased markedly while millions of new jobs have been created. At the same time, our federal budget outlook has been transformed from one of large and increasing deficits into the indefinite future to one of multitrillion dollar surpluses for at least the next ten years. Much of the cause of this economic expansion that has so blessed the United States is due to a strong surge in our productivity rate. This increase in productivity has allowed the economy to continue to grow at a rapid pace without the increase in inflation that usually accompanies such growth. The Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, and dozens of leading economists have all heralded the increase in our productivity as a key to our economic good times--and to their continuance. A major factor of this increase in productivity, Mr. President, is spending on research and development. This is what our bill today is all about. An August 1999 study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers concluded that as much as two-thirds of productivity gains is due to technological advances. These advances, in turn, fuel economic growth. The standard model of economic growth argues that one- third of growth in private-sector output is attributable to advances in technology. In the manufacturing sector, as much as two-thirds of growth can be attributed to technological advances. Moreover, this contribution is expected to increase over the next decade. It seems clear to me that if we want to keep our economy strong and growing, it is vital that we keep up and even increase these advances in technology. How do we do this? The answer is simple. Our nation must continue to invest in research and development, both at the public level, and especially in the private sector. I believe the best way to ensure that private-sector investment in research and development continues at the healthy rate needed to fuel the productivity gains of the future is to permanently extend the current-law research and experimentation credit. This tax provision is a proven and a cost-effective incentive to increase private-sector R&D spending. Studies have shown that the R&E tax credit significantly increases research and development expenditures. The marginal effect of one dollar of the R&E credit stimulates approximately one dollar of additional private research and development spending over the short-run and as much as two dollars of extra investment over the long-run. Congress has recognized the vital role the R&E credit has played in spurring increased research spending by extending the credit ten times since its inception in 1981. For most of those years, Congress was never able to find the funds to pay for a permanent extension of the credit, due to budget constraints. Fortunately, Congress passed a five- year extension in 1999 that will keep the credit alive until 2004. However, Mr. President, permanence is essential to the effectiveness of this credit. Research and development projects typically take a number of years and may even last longer than a decade. As our business leaders plan these projects, they need to know whether or not they can count on the R&E tax credit. The continual uncertainty surrounding the credit has induced businesses to allocate significantly less to research than they otherwise would if they were assured the tax credit would be available. This uncertainty undermines the entire purpose of the credit and has stifled its full potential for inducing research spending. For the government and the American people to maximize the return on their investment in U.S.-based research spending, this credit must be made permanent. In the business community, the development of new products, technologies, medicines, and ideas can result in either success or failure. Investments carry a risk. The R&E tax credit helps ease the cost of incurring these risks. Whereas foreign nations heavily subsidize research with public dollars, the United States has typically relied less on direct public funds and more on private sector incentives. The R&E tax credit has the potential to be an even more effective incentive if it were made permanent. I am aware that not every company that invests in research and development in the U.S. can take advantage of the regular R&E tax credit. As the credit's base period recedes and business cycles change, the current credit is out of reach for some companies that still incur significant research expenditures. To help solve this problem Congress enacted the Alternative Incremental Research Credit to help businesses that do not qualify for the R&E tax credit. To improve the effectiveness of this alternative credit, we have included a proposal to slightly increase each of its three incentive levels. A permanent extension of this credit may seem costly in terms of lost revenue. However, when you consider the value that this investment will create for our economy, it is a bargain. In fact, one study estimates that a permanent R&E credit would result in our Gross Domestic Product increasing by $10 billion after five years and by $31 billion after 20 years. Moreover, making the credit permanent will encourage more companies to locate their research activities within the United States. This will lead to more jobs and higher wages for U.S. workers. We must recognize that international competition is fierce. Many other countries offer significant enticements to prompt companies to move research activities within their borders. If we fail to ensure at least a level playing field, many companies will begin to consider moving their research activities abroad and we could lose thousands of precious high-paying jobs. Findings from a study conducted by Coopers & Lybrand show that workers in every state will benefit from higher wages if the R&E tax credit is made permanent. Payroll increases as a result of gains in productivity stemming from the credit have been estimated to exceed $60 billion over the next 12 years. Furthermore, greater productivity from additional R&E will increase overall economic growth in every state in the Union. My home state of Utah is a good example of how state economies benefit from the research tax credit. Utah is home to a large number of firms who invest a high percentage of their revenue on research and development. For example, between Salt Lake City and Provo lies one of the world's biggest stretches of software and computer engineering firms. This area, which was named ``Software Valley'' by Business Week, is a significant example of one of a growing number of thriving high tech commercial regions outside California's Silicon Valley. Newsweek magazine included Utah among the top ten information technology centers in the world. The Utah Information Technologies Association estimates that Utah's IT industry consists of more than 2,500 IT vendor enterprises and more than 1,000 eBusiness enterprises, employing tens of thousands and bringing billions of dollars to Utah's economy. In addition, Utah is home to about 700 biotechnology and biomedical firms that employ nearly 9,000 workers. Research and development are the reasons these companies exist. Not only do these companies need to continue conducting a high quality level of research, but this research feeds other industries and, ultimately, consumers. Just ask the patients who have benefitted from new drugs or therapies. In all, Mr. President there are more than 80,000 employees working in Utah's thousands of technology based companies. Many other states have experienced similar growth in high technology businesses. Research and development is the lifeblood of these firms and hundreds of thousands like them throughout the nation. During the ten times in the past 20 years that Congress has extended the R&E credit for a short time, the ostensible reason has been a lack of revenue. The excuse we give to constituents is that we didn't have the money to extend the bill permanently. Ironically, it costs at least as much in terms of lost revenue, in the long run, to enact short-term extensions as it does to extend it permanently. With the latest projections of the on-budget surplus, for one year, for five years, and for ten years, this excuse is gone. There is simply no valid reason that this credit should not be extended on a permanent basis. Moreover, now is the time to extend the provision permanently. By making the research credit permanent now, we will send a strong signal to the business community that a new era of stronger support for research has dawned. The timing could not be better because, as I mentioned, many research projects, especially those in pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, must be planned and budgeted for months and even years in advance. The more uncertain the long-term future of the research credit is, the smaller the potential of the credit to stimulate increased research. Simply knowing of the reliability of a permanent research credit will give a boost to the amount of research performed, even before the current credit expires in 2004. A permanent R&E credit has wide support in both the Senate and the House. Last year, this body passed by a vote of 98-1 an amendment that would have permanently extended the credit. Unfortunately, all amendments were ultimately stripped from the underlying bill. The bill we are introducing today is identical to legislation introduced earlier this month by Representatives Nancy Johnson and Robert Matsui. The identical bill in the 106th Congress was cosponsored by 164 other members of that body. Moreover, the permanent extension of the credit is a major provision in President Bush's tax cut plan, and was supported by both former President Clinton and by Al Gore. In conclusion Mr. President, if we fail to make the R&E tax credit permanent, we are limiting the potential growth of our economy. How can we expect the American economy to hold its lead in the global economic race if we allow other countries to take the edge in innovation? Making the tax credit permanent will keep American business ahead of the pack. It will speed economic growth. New technology resulting from American research and development will continue to improve the standard of living for every person in the U.S. and also worldwide. Simply put, the costs of not making the R&E tax credit permanent are far greater than the costs of making it permanent. As we begin the new millennium, we cannot afford to let the American economy slow down. Now is the time to send a strong message to our companies and to the world that America intends to retain its position as the world's foremost innovator. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.