Patrick Leahy

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I realize we are on the time of the distinguished Senator from Utah, but I wonder if I might take 30 seconds to respond to what my friend from New Mexico said.

Mr. LEAHY. One, I commend both sides for the way they have managed this. But I tell my friend from New Mexico, this Senator has not asked, urged, or cajoled any Senator to vote one way or the other. I have not lobbied one single Senator in this body or told them how I expect them to vote. The only time I have heard--I tell the Senator from New Mexico, if I could have his attention----

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a number of editorials and material regarding the nomination be printed in the Record.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that some additional op-ed pieces, columns, and others be printed in the Record regarding this nomination.

Mr. LEAHY. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to continue for 1 minute.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from New York for his words. Could the Chair please advise the Senator from Vermont what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. LEAHY. I thank the Chair. My understanding is the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Mr. Bayh, will be here presently. To use his time, I will continue under the time reserved to this side. I would like to commend a number of Senators for their contributions to this matter during the day and a half we have been debating it. I believe Senator Kennedy--we just heard him--made extraordinarily persuasive, fact-based presentations on some troubling aspects of the nominee's background. I hope all Senators listened to the remarks of Senator Mikulski, who spoke to the heart of the question and put to rest the false charge the Democrats are applying a narrow ideological litmus test. I appreciate the eloquent words of her colleague from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes, this morning. In the fashion to which we have become accustomed from Senator Sarbanes, he discussed the history of the nomination, including the hearing. I continue to marvel at the expertise of the senior Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, for his comprehensive remarks distilled so wisely and lucidly from the hearing record. Senator Durbin spent an extraordinary amount of time on this during the hearings. I think the whole Senate benefitted from the knowledge he gained from those hearings. Senator Levin presented his characteristically thoughtful remarks and careful reasoning. I thank him for that. As I said, we heard just now from the senior Senator from New York, Mr. Schumer. Not only did he speak so well on the floor, but all the Senate was helped by his thorough work during the hearings and with the kind of committee service that distinguished him on the Judiciary Committee both here and in the kind of service he had in the other body before. We heard the fine remarks of my friend from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman; the forthrightness of Senator Carper; the plain-spoken eloquence of Senator Stabenow; the statesmanship of Senator Kerry. I think of the words of the distinguished senior Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, who brought to the Senate the important circumstances of his State and his concerns--unique among all of us here. Of course, my friend, the assistant Democratic leader, Senator Reid of Nevada, has given the kind of help he always does in debates. It is something the public does not see, but he is the glue that holds everything together. Then, added to that was his own strong statement on the floor. I think of Senator Byrd, almost my seatmate in the Senate, with whom I served for over a quarter of a century and thank him for sharing his views. I thank my Republican colleagues for their views, those Senators who supported this nomination, as Senator Byrd did. I think about what Senator Harkin said when he spoke again eloquently today, and Senator Lieberman, who spoke not only about his relationship with Senator Ashcroft but of his own concerns about the issues of morality and of one's upbringing, and Senator Edwards, a person who went from the courtroom to the Senate, and represents the best of both places. I also commend Senator Hatch, of course, for his management of the debate. I yield to the senior Senator from New York.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, seeing my friend from New Mexico, I certainly yield to him.

Mr. LEAHY. Will the Senator yield on that point?

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I do, yes.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, if I could, and I do not wish to interfere in any way in the Senator's time.

Mr. LEAHY. I respect the views of the distinguished Senator from Virginia, who has been my friend from day 1 in this place. I knew him before in his other capacities, such as Secretary of the Navy. I have cherished, at home, a souvenir from the bicentennial year which I received from him. He has been a man to whom I have gone for counsel on a number of issues. I refer to him as my Senator away from home because I spend the week in Virginia when we are in session. He and I, of course, disagree on this nomination. I understand he stated his strong views on it. I have stated mine. I promised two things to both the then President-elect and Senator Ashcroft. I promised them two things when they called me to tell me they were going to nominate him: No. 1, that there would be questions, tough questions, but I would conduct a fair hearing. I believe I did. The nomination actually came to the Senate Monday of this week, the official papers. We are moving to go forward with this. Everybody in the Senate knows approximately how the vote will come out. I tell the Senator from Virginia of a conversation I had. As he can imagine, prior to my announcing my opposition to Senator Ashcroft, I called Senator Ashcroft to tell him what I was going to say and notified the White House what I was going to say. But I suggested one thing. I don't think I divulge any confidence with Senator Ashcroft who spoke about what he has gone through. It might have been the same thing the Senator from Virginia said. I suggested what he do after he is sworn in is that he meet quietly and privately with a number of Senators and House Members of both parties--those who have an interest in law enforcement issues, interests that affect the Justice Department--meet on a private, off-the-record basis, hear their suggestions or their criticisms, and vice versa. He assured me that he would. He asked me also if I would be willing to help bring Members who had voted against him or spoken against him to those meetings. I assured him I would do that, too. The Senator from Virginia makes a good point. I think the debate is good. I hope Senators on both sides of the aisle will listen to the debate. Again, I use this opportunity to mention one more time how much I have enjoyed the friendship and the wise counsel of my friend from Virginia.

Mr. LEAHY. If I might, the agreement the distinguished Senator from Utah and I had--obviously an informal agreement--was that following the normal procedure in such a debate, we would be going from side to side. The distinguished Senator from Illinois has just spoken; the distinguished Senator from Alabama was going to speak. The normal rotation would go back to this side, and it would be the distinguished senior Senator from Michigan. That is without time agreements for any Senator.

Mr. LEAHY

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

Mr. LEAHY. I yield to the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, the Senator from Delaware was going to speak, but if I might, just before he does, and on this issue, the desegregation efforts in Missouri in 1992, when Jay Nixon first ran for attorney general in Missouri, he did recognize the need to settle the St. Louis and Kansas City desegregation issues. He said the State, the cities, and parents needed resolution and certainty after years of nonstop litigation. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial summed up the differences under Jay Nixon. It said: Their differences in how the State should respond to the Federal court orders of desegregation for St. Louis and Kansas City schools is instructive. The Republican wants to keep fighting although the State lost the case long ago. The Democrat wants to have a settlement. Mr. Nixon then followed through in this agreement. He was the first Missouri official to sign a resolution on behalf of the State, and he was a supporter of the law that provided the State funding to settle the St. Louis case. In both the settlement agreement and the law to implement it, then Governor, Governor Carnahan, provided the leadership that Governor Ashcroft did not provide. Senator Ashcroft ran for Governor in 1984 as a strong opponent of the settlement, the settlement finally had in Missouri. He was 8 years as attorney general and 8 years as Governor. In those years he denied liability, opposed a fair settlement, and litigated the questions over and over again. I will put in the Record in a moment a letter from Arthur Benson who, since 1979, has been lead counsel for the schoolchildren in the Kansas City desegregation litigation. What he said in it is: While the case proved difficult to settle with the State, it did eventually settle because Jay Nixon and other Missouri officials wanted to settle rather than litigate, and because he wanted to refocus the time and efforts of state officials on improving education. To this Senator's mind, this is a marked difference from what Senator Ashcroft had done. In any event, Senators have to make up their own minds. I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not object, if I could ask the distinguished leader, this locks in the vote at 1:45. Is it his assumption that should everybody have used up their time prior to that, there may be a new request to move the vote time earlier?

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, thank you. Mr. President, we have heard a lot said by my Republican friends and others that Senator Ashcroft's nomination is opposed by ``hard left'' or ``extremist'' groups who are ``far out of the mainstream'' of American politics. I see a pretty broad group here in these extreme or out of the mainstream groups. I will read for the Record the names of those who oppose this nomination. Alliance for Justice, AFL-CIO, American Federation of Teachers, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, American Jewish Congress, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Asian Pacific American Labor Alliance, Baptist Joint Committee, California Teachers Association, Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, Friends of the Earth, General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church, Handgun Control, Hispanic Bar Association of the District of Columbia, The Interfaith Alliance, Japanese American Citizens League, Justice Policy Institute, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, National Consumers League, National Council of Jewish Women, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, National Education Association, National Rehabilitation Association, National Voting Institute, Organization of Chinese Americans, Inc., Sierra Club, United Auto Workers, US Action, Victims Rights Political Action Committee, Violence Policy Center, Youth Law Center. I ask unanimous consent that this more complete list of the organizations and individuals opposing this nomination be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of editorials regarding his nomination from the New York Times, USA Today, the Akron Beacon Journal, St. Louis Post- Dispatch, and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that David Goldberg and Kara Fecht be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the debate on the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. I appreciate the comments of my friends from Utah and the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. He suggests a lot of questions were asked of Senator Ashcroft. I read today in the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that has strongly backed Senator Ashcroft, they believe we didn't ask enough questions, especially concerning fundraising activities by Senator Ashcroft. I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, when we talk about the time involved in a nomination such as this, I recall the last controversial nomination for Attorney General we had when the Republicans controlled the Senate. That was for Edwin Meese. It took considerably longer, with far more witnesses and questions than we are having in this debate. We sometimes forget the history of what goes on here. This is a case where the White House actually sent Senator Ashcroft's nomination to the Senate on Monday--Monday of this week, 2 days ago. We are having the debate on the floor today. Prior to the President's inauguration, the Democrats controlled the Senate. We moved forward even without the paperwork or anything else from the incoming transition team. We moved forward to speed up a hearing on Senator Ashcroft. Today we begin the debate on the floor, after the Judiciary Committee debated the nomination yesterday and voted yesterday evening. As I said, I convened 3 days of hearings on this nomination over a 4-day period from January 16 to January 19. That was prior to having received all the paperwork on Senator Ashcroft. We did that to help the new administration. The Republican leadership announced weeks ago that all 50 Republican Senators would vote in favor of the nomination, irrespective of whatever came out of those hearings. I am glad that other Senators declined to prejudge the matter. Actually, the Committee on the Judiciary has done the best we could to handle this nomination fairly and fully. We have had hearings, I think, that make all members of the committee and the Senate proud. I have served in this body for 26 years. I believe very much in the committee system. I believe very much in having real hearings and then having a record available for Senators. In fact, we actually invited Senators who had served in the 106th Congress and were going to leave the committee, as well as some we anticipated would be coming in from both the Republican and Democratic side, to sit in on those hearings. I mention this because we did not actually set the membership of our committee until last Thursday, but we did this ahead of time. The committee heard from every single witness Senator Ashcroft or Senator Hatch wanted to call in his behalf. This is not a case where suddenly one side or the other was something loaded up. I think there were an equal number of witnesses on both sides. We completed the oral questioning of Senator Ashcroft in less than a day and a half. We limited each Member to two rounds of questions, for a total of only 20 minutes. The nominee was not invited back by the Republicans following the testimony of the public witnesses. As a result, any unanswered questions had to be answered in writing. We then expedited the sending of written questions to the nominee. We sent the majority of written questions on Friday, January 19, the last day of the hearing, rather than waiting until the following Monday when they were due. Senator Hatch sent out the final batch of written questions on the Tuesday following the hearing. We received some of what were described as answers to some of the written followup questions sent to the nominee late last Thursday. It is clear from those answers that the nominee has chosen not to respond to our concerns or address many of our questions. In fact, the committee has had outstanding requests to the nominee to provide a copy of the entire videotape of the commencement proceedings in which he participated at Bob Jones University, as has been discussed here on the floor. We have had that request pending since early January. That videotape was provided, incidentally, to news outlets but not to the committee. I have also requested that the nominee provide a formal response to the allegations that while he was Governor of Missouri he asked about a job applicant's sexual preference in an interview, and we have not received any answer. There have been references on the floor already today as though there were some kind of left-wing conspiracy to defeat John Ashcroft. I am not aware of that. I have asked my questions as the Senator from Vermont, and I responded to the interests of my constituents, both for and against Senator Ashcroft, from Vermont. But if there is any question of whether there is influence of anybody on this nomination, I will refer to the New York Times of Sunday, January 7, and the Washington Post of Tuesday, January 2, in which they quote a number of people from the far right of the Republican Party who openly bragged about the fact that they told the new President he could not appoint Governor Racicot of Montana--whom he wanted to appoint--but that he must appoint John Ashcroft. I mention that because, if anybody thinks this nomination has been influenced by liberal groups, the only ones who have actually determined this nomination and have openly gone to the press and bragged about influencing it are an element of the far right of the Republican Party. They have openly bragged about the fact that they told the incoming administration and President Bush that he could not have his first choice, the Governor of Montana--who is a conservative Republican and now the former Governor--but that he must appoint Senator Ashcroft. That remains a fact. That is why we are here. Notwithstanding all this, and notwithstanding the fact that the questions have not all been answered, the requested material has not all been sent, we Democrats granted consent to advance the markup date in order to proceed yesterday afternoon and last evening. As the distinguished chairman knows, normally we would have had our debate before the committee today. I said, following his request, that we would not object to moving it up 24 hours. I was told the Republicans have a meeting of their caucus scheduled for later this week and it would accommodate both the new administration and the Republicans in the Senate if we moved that up. I agreed to that. As I said, the Senate works better if Senators can work together. Accommodation, however, does not mean changing one's vote. We had a good debate in the committee. I think Republicans and Democrats would agree it was a good, solid debate. We reported the nomination to the Senate by a margin of 10-8, a narrow margin. Actually, in most of that debate we had between six and nine Democratic Members present. We usually had three to four Republican Members. I brought with me the hearing record. Here it is, right here. This is a good, solid record. It is part of the history of the Senate. I wish all Senators would review that record. Many have. Unfortunately, we are not going to have a committee report on this controversial nomination. I think we would have been helped by doing that. There was a time when we did seek to inform the Senate with committee reports on nominations, nominations such as that of Brad Reynolds or William Bennett and a number of important and controversial judicial nominations. We prepared such reports when Senator Thurmond required that as chairman. In lieu of a committee report, each Senator is left with the task of reviewing the record and searching his or her conscience and deciding how to vote. I did put into the Record a large and I hoped complete brief prepared by me and the lawyers on the Senate Judiciary staff--Bruce Cohen, Beryl Howell, Julie Katzman, Tim Lynch and others--which I think would be very helpful to the Senate. We may want to consider and contrast the behavior that has been engaged in on the other side. We have talked about the time this may have taken. We had the hearing, we expedited the debate, and we came to the floor. The consideration of the nomination of Attorney General Meese when the Republicans controlled the Senate--with a Republican Senate, one would assume that would move very quickly--that took 13, not days, not weeks: 13 months. And then we had several days of debate in a Republican-controlled Senate before final Senate action. There was reference to how we how we handled the nomination of Attorney General Reno. That was noncontroversial, and that still took a month from nomination to confirmation. She was not confirmed by the Senate until mid-March in the first year of President Clinton's term. Attorney General Meese was not confirmed by the Senate until late February in 1985, at the beginning of President Reagan's second term. Here we are in January. This nomination was sent to the Senate on Monday, 48 hours ago. I hope those who advise the President will point out to him these facts so he is not under the impression this nomination has been delayed from Senate consideration. The Democrats, when we controlled the Senate for a few weeks, expedited this. Republicans, when they controlled the Senate at the time of President Reagan, took 13 months to get his nomination of Edwin Meese through. I have reviewed the hearing record and the nominee's responses to the written followup questions from the Judiciary Committee. I did that before I announced I would oppose John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States. I have talked to the Senate already about this, and to the committee, about my reasons for opposing the nomination. I expect we will go back to this during the debate. Let's not lose sight of the historical context in which we consider this nomination. This is an especially sensitive time in our Nation's history. Many seeds of disunity have been carried aloft by winds that come in gusts--especially, unfortunately, from the State of Florida. The Presidential election, the margin of victory, the way in which the vote counting was halted by five members of the U.S. Supreme Court-- these remain sources of public concern and even alienation. Deep divisions within our country have infected the body politic. We experienced the closest Presidential election in the last 130 years, probably the closest in our history. For the first time, a candidate who received more votes than were cast for the victor in the last three elections for President, who received half a million more votes than the person who eventually was inaugurated as President--received half a million more votes, I should say, than the man who became President-- saw the man who became President declared the victor of the Presidential election by one electoral vote. I do not question the fact that President Bush is legitimately our President. Of course, he is. I was at the inauguration. We all were. He was inaugurated. Yet, I would hope Senators will realize the concerns in this country: One person gets half a million more votes, the other person becomes President; the one who becomes President after a disputed count in one State becomes President by one electoral vote. He is President. He has all the powers, he has all the obligations, all the duties of the Presidency, and all the legitimacy of the Presidency. I have no question about that. But I think he has an obligation to try to unite the country, not to divide the country. In fact, 11 days ago, President Bush acknowledged the difficulties of these times and the special needs of a divided Nation. He said: While many of our citizens prosper, others doubt the promise, even the justice, of our own country. He pledged to ``work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.'' I was one of those who had lunch with the new President less than an hour after his inauguration. I spoke to him and told him how much his speech meant to me. I told him he will be the sixth President with whom I have served. I told him how impressed I was by his inaugural speech. I said he had a sense of history and a sense of country, and I applauded him for it. I do think the nomination of John Ashcroft to be Attorney General does not meet the standard that the President himself has set. For those who doubt the promise of American justice--and, unfortunately, there are many in this country who doubt it--this nomination does not inspire confidence in the U.S. Department of Justice. My Republican colleagues have urged us to rely on John Ashcroft's promise to enforce the law, as if that is the only requirement to be an Attorney General. If Senator Ashcroft would have come before the committee and said he would not enforce the law, we would not be debating this issue today. I cannot imagine any nominee--and I have sat in on hundreds of nomination hearings--would say they would not enforce the law. That is not the end of the story. The Senate's constitutional duty to advise and consent is not limited to extracting a promise from a nominee that he will abide by his oath of office. Let me quote what my good friend, Senator Hatch, said on the floor on November 4, 1997, about the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights: His talents and good intentions have taken him far. But his good intentions should not be sufficient to earn the consent of this body. Those charged with enforcing the Nation's law must demonstrate a proper understanding of that law, and a determination to uphold its letter and its spirit * * *. At his hearing before the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Lee suggested he would enforce the law without regard to his personal opinions. But that cannot be the end of our inquiry. The Senate's responsibility is then to determine what the nominee's view of the law is. Like Senator Ashcroft, Bill Lann Lee promised to enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. He made the promise emphatically, he made it repeatedly, and he made it specifically with respect to certain Supreme Court decisions with which he may have personally disagreed. Despite all of Bill Lann Lee's assurances that he would enforce the law, the Republican-controlled Senate would not allow a vote up or down on the floor on his nomination. I believe John Ashcroft's assurances that he would enforce the law is not the end of our inquiry. Far more than the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, a job to which Bill Lann Lee was nominated, the Attorney General has vast authority to interpret the law and to participate in the law's development. Unlike one of his assistants, he has to be held to a higher standard because he sets the policy. The assistant carries out the policy of the Attorney General. The Attorney General's job is not merely to decide whether common crimes, such as bank robbery, should be prosecuted. Of course, they should. Does anybody believe that whoever is Attorney General faced with something as horrendous as the Oklahoma City bombing is going to say, ``I am not going to prosecute''? Does anybody believe an Attorney General faced with a skyjacking or assassination is going to say, ``I am not going to prosecute''? Of course, they are going to prosecute. But there are many other less spectacular matters, matters that are not in the news every day, where the Attorney General has to decide how the law is to be enforced. The Attorney General has more discretion in this regard than anybody in Government. The Attorney General advises the President on judicial nominations. He decides what positions to take before the Supreme Court and lower Federal courts. He decides which of our thousands of statutes require defending or interpreting. He allocates enforcement resources. The Attorney General decides whom we are going to sue and, even more importantly, perhaps, decides which cases we are going to settle. He makes hiring and firing decisions. He sets a tone for the Nation's law enforcement officials. I think it is reasonable to go back and look at how John Ashcroft acted as attorney general before, and I go back to Missouri. Again, he was sworn to enforce the laws and all the laws. So how did he focus the resources of his office? This is how he did it. He focused the resources of his office on banning abortions and also on blocking nurses from dispensing birth control pills and IUDs. He sued political dissenters, and he fought voluntary desegregation. I am sure with murder cases or anything else such as that he would enforce the law, but it is how he chose to decide which of those discretionary areas to act in that troubles me. He has used language here describing the judiciary that is disturbing to many. He has shown what Senator Biden calls ``bad judgment'' in associating with Bob Jones University and Southern Partisan magazine, and he unfairly besmirched the reputations of Presidential nominees, including Judge Ronnie White and Ambassador James Hormel. I am particularly concerned that he has not fully accepted what he now calls the settled law regarding a woman's right to choose. His confirmation evolution seems implausible, given his support less than 3 years ago for the Human Life Act, which he now admits is unconstitutional even though he supported it, and his denial of the ``legitimacy'' of Roe and Casey in the 1997 ``Judicial Despotism'' speech, in which he called the Supreme Court ``ruffians in robes.'' I have disagreed with the Supreme Court on some cases, but I have never called them that. His assurances are totally undercut by the recent remarks of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Just 1 day after Senator Ashcroft assured the committee that Roe and Casey were settled law and that he would not seek an opportunity to overturn them, the President said he would not rule out having the Justice Department argue for that result. The Vice President similarly refused to commit himself on this issue over the weekend. A promise to enforce the law is only a minimum qualification for the job of Attorney General. It is not a sufficient one. It is simply not enough just to say you will enforce the law. Senator Ashcroft's record does matter in making a judgment about whether he is the right person for this job. Throughout the committee hearings, my Republican colleagues said we should give Senator Ashcroft credit for his public service. I agree with that, just as I give him strong credit and admire him for his devotion to his family and his religion. At the same time, my Republican friends insist that his record and the positions he has taken in public service do not matter because he will take now a different position as U.S. Attorney General. President Bush asked us to look into Senator Ashcroft's heart, but we are being urged not to look into his record. I do not doubt the goodness of his heart. I do doubt the consistency of his record. Some of my Republican colleagues went so far as to argue we should not hear from any witnesses other than the nominee, that we need not review all the nominee's required financial disclosures and his files and his speeches before passing on this nomination. That is not the way we go about our responsibility of advise and consent. Remember, the Constitution does say advise and consent, not advise and rubber stamp. That is why, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, during the weeks I held that post, I refused to railroad this nomination through. Instead, I had full, fair, informative hearings to review the nominee's record and positions. The American people are entitled to an Attorney General who is more than just an amiable friend to many of us here in the Senate and promises more than just a bare minimum that he will enforce the law. They are entitled to someone who will uphold the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court, respect the courts, abide by decisions he disagrees with, and enforce the law for everybody regardless of politics. The way to determine that is to look at the nominee's record, not to engage in metaphysical speculation about his heart. John Ashcroft's stubborn insistence on re-litigating a voluntary desegregation decree consented to by all the other parties over and over again, at great expense to the State of Missouri and with sometimes damaging disruption to the education of Missouri's children, is relevant. It is relevant because someone who has used his power as a State Attorney General to delay and obstruct efforts to remedy past racial discrimination by the State, and who has then publicly excoriated the judges who ruled against him and made a major political issue of his disagreements with the courts, may use his greater power as the U.S. Attorney General for similarly divisive political purposes. His effort as a State Attorney General to suppress the political speech of a group with which he disagreed--the National Organization of Women--by means of an antitrust suit is relevant, because it reflects on how he might respond to political dissent as U.S. Attorney General. His actions as Governor of Missouri and as a U.S. Senator are also relevant. In those offices, he took the same oath of office to uphold the Constitution that he would take as U.S. Attorney General. Yet, in both of those offices, he sponsored legislation that was patently unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade: the 1991 anti-abortion bill in Missouri, and the 1998 ``Human Life Act'' in the Senate. It is highly relevant to ask why, if his oath of office did not constrain him from ignoring the Constitution in those public offices, we should expect it to constrain him as Attorney General. And it is also relevant to ask whether the same John Ashcroft who as a U.S. Senator went around making public speeches calling a majority of the current conservative Supreme Court ``five ruffians in robes'' has the temperament needed to be an effective advocate before that same Court as U.S. Attorney General. I cannot judge John Ashcroft's heart. But we can all judge his record. Running through that record are troubling, recurrent themes: disrespect for Supreme Court precedent with which he disagrees; grossly intemperate criticism of judges with whom he disagrees; insensitivity and bad judgment on racial issues; and the use of distortions, secret holds and ambushes to destroy the public careers of those whom he opposes. I cannot give my consent to this nomination. Mr. President, I will say more, but I see several Senators from both sides of the aisle on the floor. I am going to withhold in just a moment. But just think for a moment, we are a nation of 280 million Americans. What a fantastic nation we are. We range across the political spectrum, across the economic spectrum, all races and religions. I think of, in my own case, my mother's family coming to this country not speaking a word of English. My grandfathers were stonecutters in Vermont. I look at the diversity of ethnic backgrounds in our family, my wife growing up speaking a language other than English. We have great diversity in this country and, over it all, everybody knowing, whether they are an immigrant stonecutter or whether they are a wealthy Member of the Senate, the laws will always treat them the same; everybody knowing, whether they are black or white, they can rely on the law to treat them the same. But on top of all that, the Attorney General of the United States represents all of us. The Attorney General is not the lawyer for the President; the President has a White House counsel. In fact, to show the separation, the White House counsel does not require Senate confirmation; he or she is appointed by the President, and that is the choice of the President alone. But the Attorney General requires confirmation because the Attorney General represents all of us. We hold this country together because we assume the law treats us all the same. When I look at the public opinion polls in this country and see a nation deeply divided over this choice for Attorney General, it shows me that American people do not have confidence in this nomination. I hope, if John Ashcroft is confirmed, he will take steps to heal those divisions, take steps to say he will be the Attorney General for everybody, not just for one group who told the President he had to appoint him. So in that regard, I hope all Senators will think about that. Mr. President, I will go back to this later on, but I see other Senators on the floor, so I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 31, 2001] Senate Panel Backs Ashcroft Despite Fund-Raising Issues (By Tom Hamburger and Rachel Zimmerman) Washington.--The Senate Judiciary Committee narrowly sent John Ashcroft's nomination as attorney general to the Senate floor, even as outside critics complained that his history of aggressive fund raising raises questions about his ability to enforce campaign-finance laws. The committee's 10-8 vote, with Democrat Russell Feingold of Wisconsin joining the committee's nine Republicans, signaled that Mr. Ashcroft is almost certain to win confirmation from the full Senate later this week. But the panel's sharp division and Senate Minority Leader Thomas Daschle's announcement yesterday that he will vote against his former colleague reflect the strong opposition among Democratic constituencies to Mr. Ashcroft's staunchly conservative record. Mr. Daschle accused the Missouri Republican of having ``misled the Senate and deliberately distorted'' the record of African-American judicial nominee Ronnie White, leading the Senate to reject Mr. White's nomination to the federal bench. Answering such attacks for the GOP, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah complained that a ``vicious'' campaign by liberal advocacy groups had left Democratic senators giving Mr. Ashcroft ``not one positive benefit of the doubt.'' One of Mr. Ashcroft's most voluble opponents, Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, indicated that he won't attempt to block the nomination with a filibuster. President Bush urged quick action by the Senate so that his administration could proceed with the organization of the Justice Department, where a number of top department appointments have been held up pending action on Mr. Ashcroft. ``I would just hope there are no further delays,'' Mr. Bush said. ``There's been a lot of discussion, a lot of debate . . . and it's now time for the vote, it seems like to me.'' Actually, the former senator's history of campaign fund raising hasn't been debated much within the Senate. Mr. Feingold, who backed Mr. Ashcroft in yesterday's vote, is one of the chamber's leading advocates of campaign reform. But yesterday, he cited the ``substantial deference'' a president deserves in nominations. Critics say Mr. Ashcroft has repeatedly pushed at the edges of campaign-finance regulations by using taxpayer-financed office staff to wage election campaigns, and by joining other candidates in both parties in finding loopholes that have allowed him to pursue larger donations than the $1,000-a- person contributions permitted to a candidate's campaign committee. Those critics, from Democrats in Mr. Ashcroft's home state to representatives of national organizations promoting campaign-finance overhaul, say the lack of attention to the issue reflects how deeply the Senate itself is steeped in the techniques of fully exploiting the campaign-finance system. But at a time when an overhaul bill may soon overcome lingering resistance on Capitol Hill, they say Mr. Ashcroft's record casts a cloud over his commitment to enforce rigorously the laws regulating how political money is raised and spent. ``The Senate has completely failed its obligation to pursue this line of inquiry,'' complains John Bonifaz, executive director of the National Voting Rights Institute, a Boston nonprofit group that specializes in campaign finance and civil-rights litigation. Mr. Ashcroft's backers on Capitol Hill and in the Bush administration dismiss the complaints as ideologically inspired sniping. Administration spokeswoman Mindy Tucker says Mr. Ashcroft has ``always adhered to the law on campaign-finance issues and his campaign-finance practices have been above reproach.'' Like other senators in both parties, Mr. Ashcroft formed a joint committee with his national party's Senate campaign arm to collect unregulated ``soft money.'' When he was exploring a presidential bid, he went to Virginia, which has few campaign-money limits, to establish a political action committee that accepted a $400,000 donation. ``A blatant evasion of laws that are designed to protect against the kind of corruption the attorney general is charged with upholding,'' complains Scott Harshbarger, Common Cause president. In one case, Missouri Democrats allege, Mr. Ashcroft went over the line of propriety. It dates to 1982, when Mr. Ashcroft was Missouri attorney general and brought an action against a local oil company for selling tainted gasoline. The company, Inland Oil, countersued, charging that Mr. Ashcroft's actions were motivated by his desire to win election as governor. In a deposition. Mr. Ashcroft's administrative assistant said be worked on Mr. Ashcroft's election campaign while a state employee and contacted potential campaign contributors from his government office. The lawsuit also noted that Mr. Ashcroft had solicited an executive of Inland Oil for a donation to the state GOP in a fund-raising appeal under the state attorney general's letterhead, and that he personally sought a donation from a barge-company owner who did business with Inland. Mr. Ashcroft has said the mail solicitation was merely sent in his name, and Ms. Tucker says he hadn't known of the barge concern's connection to Inland when he sought a donation. The state later settled its complaint against Inland Oil, which in turn dropped its counter suit. An opposing legal counsel in that case, Alex Bartlett, says Mr. Ashcroft ``caved'' on the case to avoid answering questions about his fund-raising practices. Mr. Bartlett also says Mr. Ashcroft later exacted retribution by effectively blocking the Clinton administration from nominating him for a federal judgeship in the mid-1990s. Former White House Counsel Abner Mikva says then-Sen. Ashcroft told him in early 1995, ``I don't like'' Mr. Bartlett. Ms. Tucker rejects that interpretation of events, saying Mr. Ashcroft negotiated an appropriate settlement in the Inland Oil matter. If he later expressed reservations about Mr. Bartlett to Mr. Mikva, she adds, he didn't block him from the bench since Mr. Bartlett was never formally nominated. She also says Mr. Ashcroft never used public employees to perform campaign work except in their off ours. Fund-Raising Vehicles John Ashcroft has harvested donations, in recent years using these political committees: Ashcroft 2000: Senate re-election committee raised $8.9 million in ``hard'' money subject to federal limits of $1,000 per individual donation, $5,000 per political action committee. Ashcroft Victory Fund: Collected $3.8 million unregulated ``soft'' money during 1999-2000, split evenly between Ashcroft 2000 and National Republican Senatorial Committee. Spirit of America PAC: So-called leadership PAC collected $3.6 million in hard money since 1997, largely to finance Ashcroft's exploration of a presidential bid. American Values PAC: Virginia-based PAC raised $586,533 beginning in 1998, which financed TV ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. Mr. KYL addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEAHY

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. LEAHY. There was so much noise, I do thank the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia for asking for order. I did not hear the first part of the statement of my friend from Mississippi. We begin the debate on the Ashcroft nomination prior to even voting it out? Or was it in morning business?