Wednesday, Jan. 17, 2001

SEN. BOB SMITH, R-N.H.: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And Senator Ashcroft and Janet, welcome.

I think Thomas Paine once said, "These are the times that try men's souls," and then he spoke of the sunshine patriots. You're not a sunshine patriot. You're willing to stand here and take it. You don't deserve some of the things that have been said about you and will be said about you. And I know it's tough, but there are a lot of us, I think frankly on both sides of the debate, that appreciate the fact that you're willing to do just that.

It is not pleasant for me, as a personal friend of yours — and I will admit that publicly — to hear terms such as racism applied to you, my friend. It's unworthy — those who make the charges. And it's certainly not in the best interest of the political debate of this country.

Senator Kohl, I believe, a few moments ago said that the attorney general of the United States should be a role model. If I could pick a role model for my two sons, I'd pick John Ashcroft. And I wouldn't hesitate one moment to do just that.

Throughout his entire career in politics, in his own words, he has sought to bring America to its highest and best. He loves his country, he loves Missouri, he loves his family, he loves the law, and he loves the Constitution. And yes, he loves his God. That's not a disqualifier; that's a qualifier. That's not a divider; that's a uniter.

There's a lot of cynicism in this town. And people think there's too much politics in politics. We've heard some of it in the public debate leading up to this hearing. We'll hear some of it, and we've already heard some of it in the hearing.

But John Ashcroft is a guy who's always looking to do what is right. I'm reminded, and I think Senator Durbin alluded to it, of John Ashcroft coming in to the Republican Conference after the sudden and tragic death of Governor Mel Carnahan, his opponent; emotionally talking about that in the confines of that room with only his colleagues there; announcing to all of us he would suspend his campaign immediately for at least the next 10 days. While that happened, the other side geared up to defeat him, but John did the right thing.

That's the kind of man he is. That's the kind of man he is, so when you hear the criticisms, be reminded of the kind of person that he really is. I've never known him to look at a poll or a focus group to make a decision. He looks to the law, he looks to the Constitution, he looks to the founding fathers.

America does not need an attorney general who is concerned about public opinion. Americans want an attorney general who is concerned about the law and the Constitution, an attorney general who will not only enforce it, but be an aggressive and vociferous advocate for it and the Constitution.

President-elect Bush could have picked another person for attorney general, but he couldn't have picked a better person for attorney general.

There will be witnesses who are going to say that because John Ashcroft is a man of religious faith that he won't enforce the law. On the contrary, I would say that knowing the importance Senator Ashcroft places in his faith, I can't think of anyone I'd place more confidence in to support the law.

Senator Feingold mentioned a few moments ago that some of the decisions or some of the views that Senator Ashcroft has taken are painful to some on his side. I might also say some of the views that the current attorney general has taken have been painful on our side.

But when he puts his hand on the Bible, as Senator Kyl said, and swears to enforce the law, he means it. He'll do it.

We're not going to hear much today, except on this side of the table, about the qualifications of Senator John Ashcroft. They've been mentioned a thousand sides, yet I want to say them again: two- term Missouri attorney general; head of the National Association of Attorneys General, receiving a commendation for that; two-term Missouri governor; head of the National Association of Governors; U.S. senator and former member of this Judiciary Committee. We won't hear a lot about that from the other side, because that's not the issue to them.

As a matter of fact, John Ashcroft may be the most qualified candidate ever nominated for attorney general. Again, we're not going to be focusing on those qualifications from the other side.

In 1993, Janet Reno said, quote, "The only reason for the death penalty is vengeance. What I want is to put the bad people away and keep them away." A strong statement from the attorney general, opposed to the death penalty, but Janet Reno applied the law of the land, which is the death penalty.

There's no fear here.

In conclusion, President-elect George Bush has chosen a like- minded conservative to serve as his U.S. attorney general. We should respect that choice, as has been said here, just as Republicans, by a vote of 98 to 0, confirmed Janet Reno.

And I'll say to my colleagues, if it is painful, if I can vote for Janet Reno, you can vote for John Ashcroft.

(LAUGHTER)

Again, Mr. Chairman, let us set aside the mud slinging, set aside the rhetoric. This is a decent, honorable man. Let's focus on the qualifications on John Ashcroft to be the next U.S. attorney general.

My friend, they're going to put you down a bumpy road; there's no question about it. But you've got good shock absorbers. And you're bigger than the politics of self-destruction. Handle it well, as I know you will.

And the American people, once they know who you are, once they get to know you, they'll be with you.

Thank you.

LEAHY: I thank the senator from New Hampshire. And I do want, if he is feeling as badly about voting for Attorney General Reno, at least he has the satisfaction of knowing that while the national crime rate went up for the 12 years before she came there, it went down for the eight years she was there. So that will give you a chance to point to a very good accomplishment.

Having said that ...

SESSIONS: It didn't go down all those years. Just a few, about 12 years before.

LEAHY: Didn't go down any before ...

SESSIONS: Yes, it did.

HATCH: Enough said.

SESSIONS: I'll show you the numbers.

LEAHY: Well, we can ...

SESSIONS: I was there.

LEAHY: Well, maybe when you were U.S. attorney.

HATCH: It's going to go down a heck of a lot more under Attorney General Ashcroft. I guarantee you that.

(LAUGHTER)

LEAHY: I wish you'd stop delaying this, Senator Hatch. We got to get going with this.

And now, I welcome, again, the distinguished senator from Kansas, who is a friend to all of us in this body, and delighted to have him here in the committee and please go ahead.

BROWNBACK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it's a pleasure to join this committee. I look forward to serving on it and important issues that come here and before this committee. And this is one of them.

John, welcome, and Janet, delighted to have you folks here. I'm looking forward to your confirmation as attorney general and your serving with distinction in that capacity, as you have every place else you've served in your long public career that you have had thus far.

As a personal note, you know, they say a true friend is somebody who will give you the shirt off their back. I was in my apartment complex I was, in town, was in a fire this last year. And I was standing out in the streets with not much else that I got out with. And the Ashcroft's came over and gave me a roof over my head for several days and took me in. And unlike Senator Feingold's experience driving, I would put you as Secretary of HUD in a moment.

(LAUGHTER)

Housing was excellent, wonderful accommodations. And they were very kind. And I would dare say, they would do that for anybody in this room, not just me. That's the kind of people that John and Janet Ashcroft are. And I had a personal experience, and I deeply appreciate that kindness you showed me then and you have all along.

Our states share a common border. We served on two committees together, in the Commerce and Foreign Relations Committee. Our offices are just down the hall from each other. So we've had a chance to work on a lot of things together.

But, really, much more important than either geography or committee assignments, John has shared with me, through his life through the things that he has done, through what I've observed, what I've seen, what I've talked with him about: his honesty, his integrity, his devotion to his family and to his creator, his principled character and his steadfast belief that each of us, each of us is put here on Earth to help our fellow man and to leave this world a better place for all of our children, for those here now and those yet to be.

And contrary to the assertions of those who make a living exacerbating the tensions that divide us as a nation, I know John Ashcroft is committed to our nation's promise of equal justice for all, no matter what their stage of life.

He has been an outstanding public servant, an example of public service that many of us in this dais would be proud to have.

Now in the Constitution, Article II, Section 3 provides that the president, quote, "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," end of quote. I'm certain John has already read that provision many, many times.

John, when President-elect Bush nominated you to head the Department of Justice he stated that he believed in your, quote, "commitment to fair and firm and impartial administration of justice." When you accepted President-elect Bush's nomination, you reaffirmed for the world to hear, your commitment to equal justice under the law, something you've served your entire life with distinction and will continue to do so.

Mr. Chairman, let me close my brief statement by saying to our guests at the witness table that, John, you're missed here in the Senate, you really are. But I look forward to voting for your confirmation and towards working with you as attorney general of the United States, and you're going to do an outstanding job. Thanks.

LEAHY: Thank you.

I see no other senators have statements to make. We will take a 10-minute break.

Before everybody leaves, there are a lot of people who want to come in. If there's anybody who is — I say this without a great deal of expectation — but if there are those who wish to leave and give their seats to others, there are those available to take the seats. I mention this because we will have closed circuit TV in Dirksen 226, with chairs and so forth.

With that, we'll stand in recess.

(RECESS)

LEAHY: So we can understand where we stand before we go to Senator Ashcroft's testimony, we will first have three distinguished senators who are here, who I wish to introduce them.

And following tradition, as he is from Missouri, we'll go first to the senior senator from Missouri, Senator Bond.

SEN. CHRISTOPHER BOND, R-MO.: Mr. Chairman, if you don't mind, I might defer to the other members of the panel for their first introductions, and I would be happy to relinquish my spot and follow as the third and least of the introducers.

LEAHY: And the senator, of course, has that right. I thank him for his courtesy, and then we'll go to Senator Carnahan as the other senator from Missouri.

SEN. JEAN CARNAHAN, D-MO.: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch. Three months ago this very day I could not possibly have imagined that I would be here. And I suspect that Senator Ashcroft could say the same.

During the time that John Ashcroft served the state of Missouri, my late husband, Mel Carnahan, also served in public life as state treasurer, lieutenant governor and governor. So I have an appreciation for the many burdens that Senator Ashcroft and Janet and his family have had to bear in order to serve.

Now a new burden rests upon his shoulders and upon each member of the United States Senate. We are considering the nomination of Mr. Ashcroft to be the attorney general of the United States, one of the most powerful and sensitive offices in the nation. I urge you to show him fairness but not favoritism, to welcome all of the facts without fear, and to base your decision on principle and not partisanship.

I ask you to look beyond any history of friendship or disputes, and to look beyond the bonds or divisions of party, and to look beyond the urging of interest groups expressing either support or opposition to this nomination. Instead, let us base our decision on the facts as they are determined by a full and fair hearing. I believe that is how we can best serve the interests of the people of America.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch, as a proud resident of the Show Me state and a member of this esteemed body, I come here today to introduce to you my fellow Missourian, John David Ashcroft.

Thank you.

LEAHY: Thank you very much, Senator.

And Senator Hutchison? Following our regional procedure, we will go to you, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas.

SEN. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, R-Texas: Thank you, Chairman Leahy, Chairman Hatch and other members of this committee.

I'm pleased to be here in support of my good friend, former Senator John Ashcroft, whom I've known for many years before he became my colleague. In fact, I was in Kansas City with him and Janet when he had his first press conference after suspending his campaign for the United States Senate for 10 days out of respect for his deceased opponent. The people of America saw the true heart of John Ashcroft in the way he handled the tragic death of Mel Carnahan. He showed magnanimity in his defeat. He put the people of Missouri before his own self-interest.

Mr. Chairman, I think he will do the same for the people of America as attorney general of the United States.

John and I have served together for six years. He brings an impressive background which all of you have heard several times today. I also think it is worth mentioning, because I think it adds to the integrity of this family, to mention his wonderful wife Janet, who has spent the last five years showing her commitment to education and diversity by teaching at one of our great historically black colleges, Howard University.

Senator Ashcroft and I have worked together on many issues and I want to mention a few of those here because he was a leader. He was a leader in co-sponsoring my legislation to eliminate the marriage tax penalty which has the effect of taxing many women at higher rates when the enter the workplace. Last year, he and I worked together to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. He and I both introduced legislation to amend the current stalking laws to make it a crime to stalk someone via electronic means such as the Internet. This new criminal law is now in place.

John led the effort to allow hourly wage earners, particularly working mothers, the ability to craft flexible work schedules to better meet the demands of both job and family. While in the Senate, John Ashcroft voted to prohibit people convicted of domestic violence from owning a firearm.

John also took a very important issue increasing the rights of victims.

While he was governor, he enacted a victim's rights law in Missouri, and has been a staunch co-sponsor with Senator Kyl on the victim's right constitutional amendment, along with Senator Feinstein.

Also while governor, he appointed the first women to the Missouri Supreme Court.

So I would say to this committee, maybe you might not agree with John Ashcroft on every issue, I think there will be legitimate philosophical differences between Congress and the executive branch, but as I have heard all of the opening statements today, there has been no question whatsoever of John Ashcroft's qualifications, his experience for this job and his absolute total integrity.

On the question of enforcing the law, I don't think there's any question that John Ashcroft will uphold and enforce all the laws of our country, and do it vigorously.

So in nominating John Ashcroft, President-elect Bush has made his choice. And I believe the Congress should respect the new president's decision.

I am pleased to be here, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on behalf of my former colleague, a person for whom I have great respect.

LEAHY: Thank you, Senator Hutchison. And I appreciate you taking the time to be here.

And, Senator Bond, we'll go now to you, please.

BOND: Mr. Chairman, ranking minority member, temporarily, Senator Hatch ...

(LAUGHTER)

HATCH: We want you to repeat the "temporarily," Kit.

BOND: ... temporarily, Senator Hatch, if I may submit my full statement to the record, I'll try to summarize it, because I have a good bit to say about the man I'm honored to present today, President- elect Bush's nominee for attorney general.

It's a proud day for me, for the state of Missouri, and for this body. As a well-respected former member of this body, John Ashcroft doesn't need to be introduced to you.

I go back to 1973.

BOND: I had the responsibility to appoint a state auditor for Missouri, and based upon what I saw as promise in John Ashcroft, his character, intelligence and commitment to public service, I selected him. For 28 years I have watched him work every day in the best and highest traditions of this country. Those of you who work with him in the Senate have had an opportunity to see that.

If you were to ask me one word to describe John Ashcroft, it would be "integrity." And integrity means a steadfast adherence to a strict moral or ethical code. And I'm saying to my colleagues on the committee, that code subsumes within it the adherence to the Constitution and laws. Throughout John Ashcroft's career as attorney general and governor, he has done that.

But in this new position, I can think of no one better to be the chief law enforcement agent of this country. He believes in strong and fair law enforcement. He has a consistently strong record on law enforcement, and it's supported by those on the frontlines of law enforcement.

If you would permit me, Mr. Chairman, I wish to recognize Mary Ann Vevrett (ph), chief of police for Gaithersburg, Maryland, who is here today on behalf of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 18,000 members strong, who know firsthand how crucial it is to have the support of someone like John Ashcroft in the attorney general's office. They are behind John. And I thank you very much, Chief.

Mr. Chairman, in recent weeks we've seen self-described proponents of various activist groups, trying to convince senators that there is a different John Ashcroft than the man we know personally. Like a sidewalk con-artist, these groups are asking senators, "Who are you going to believe, me or your own lying eyes?" Well, they're asking members of this body to embrace the caricature of John Ashcroft over senators' own close knowledge of the man's fine record, built in this committee and on the Senate floor.

I've been disappointed in some of the things that I've heard said about John Ashcroft; slash and attack methods are something we've seen far too often in Washington, and I believe the American people are sick and tired of it.

Nevertheless, there are legitimate questions that can and should be raised. And several members of the committee have raised the reasonable question of whether John Ashcroft can be trusted to enforce laws with which he personally disagrees.

Well, I'm here to tell you that I have observed him, and I can give you the Missouri "show me" test. He will enforce the laws.

We can assume that most, if not all, United States attorneys general have disagreed with some of the laws they were charged with enforcing. But why is it now that John Ashcroft, a conservative and committed Christian, is charged by some extreme groups of special interest that he would somehow be unable to enforce the laws because of his beliefs? I see some elements of religious bigotry in that.

John Ashcroft has stated and repeated firmly that he believes his religion teaches him that he should not impose his religious beliefs on anybody else. He has, however, sought, as we all have, to change the law where he deeply believes it was inadequate or wrong.

Undoubtedly, every member of this committee can find votes cast or positions taken by John Ashcroft with which we disagree. I certainly can. Obviously, some of you find many issues on which you disagree legislatively with John Ashcroft.

But that is not the point. When you look at the record, you'll see that John Ashcroft believes in enforcing the law as it stands.

As Missouri's attorney general, he was my lawyer when I was governor. In 1981, despite his opposition to abortion, he issued an opinion in which he ruled that the Missouri Division of Health could not release to the public information on the number of abortions performed by particular hospitals.

Despite his personal view that life begins at conception, he issued an opinion that Missouri law did not require a certificate of death if a fetus was 20 weeks old or less.

Despite his own personal commitment to the distribution of Bibles and other religious materials, he issued an attorney general's opinion in 1979 that a board of education has no legal authority to grant permission to any organization to distribute religious material to any or all the student body on school property.

Although he stated his opposition to racial set-asides, he issued an opinion in 1980 that allowed 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.

The John Ashcroft you and I know will be a good attorney general. I can think of no nominee who is better qualified. Senator Kyl and many of you have already spoken about the qualifications. I must say, in deep regret, that the characterization of John Ashcroft's record by my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts is flat, simply wrong. That is not the person that we in Missouri know and respect.

John Ashcroft will and can continue to serve this nation with distinction. He knows the legislator's job is to write the laws and the attorney general's job is to enforce it. The American people have a right to expect something better than an attorney general who bends the law to serve a president's political needs and personal views. I know John Ashcroft would never engage in such behavior. He will faithfully, fairly, and effectively administer the laws of this great land. He is not one to bend the laws to his personal beliefs.

I come before this committee and respectfully asks that John Ashcroft's nomination to be attorney general be judged on the basis of the content of his character and that charges against him which are personal and insubstantial be dismissed, and this committee and that the full body confirm him as United States attorney general.

KENNEDY: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what Senator Bond has mentioned. I'll come back during the question period and we'll have an opportunity to have an exchange with the nominee.

LEAHY: What the senator wants is somewhat extraordinary for somebody introducing somebody to take issue with an opening statement of a senator on the panel. I would give opportunity for you to respond now, if you want it, but if not, it's up to you.

KENNEDY: I'd be happy to. We'll wait until the question period.

LEAHY: Why don't we do this? I think all three of the introducers, and I'll let you leave and maybe the staff can move this around a little bit so that Senator Ashcroft could sit in the center, move the name tags around the rest.

I thank Senator Hutchison, Senator Carnahan and Senator Bond, I thank you for being here.

LEAHY: Senator Ashcroft, will you please stand to be sworn?

Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

FORMER SEN. JOHN ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL-DESIGNATE: I do.

LEAHY: Please be seated.

And Senator Ashcroft, before you begin your statement, it's been mentioned several times that you have family and friends here. Would you like — following our normal procedure at these things — to point out family or members or others you may wish to in the audience?

ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, if it pleases the committee, I will make that part of my opening remarks.

LEAHY: It's totally your choice. Go ahead.

ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Hatch, members of the committee.

THURMOND: Will you speak in your loudspeaker?

ASHCROFT: Yes, Senator Thurmond, I will. Thank you very much.

(UNKNOWN): You should know that by now, John.

(LAUGHTER)

ASHCROFT: It's a case of how soon we forget. What struck me most is that I came here, and I had a distinct and clear signal that being out of the Senate is different because each other member of the Senate was designated as honorable, and I'm just designated as senator. And I'm just trying to figure what the difference is between being honorable and being a senator.

(LAUGHTER)

LEAHY: Be careful, you may lose some votes over here.

(LAUGHTER)

HATCH: I don't think so.

ASHCROFT: Thank you. It is a high honor for me to appear before you today for consideration as the attorney general of the United States of America.

I first want to extend my appreciation to the senators from my home state of Missouri, Senators Bond and Carnahan, for the courtesy and kindness of participating in an introduction for me at this committee today.

And, of course, it's most pleasing that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas would join them by adding introductory remarks on my behalf. I extend to her my sincere appreciation as well.

For four years, I had the privilege of sitting with you on this committee. During that time, I never thought of it simply as the Judiciary Committee.

Instead, I thought of it being the Justice Committee, for this distinguished body is the ultimate legislative voice on American justice. It was an honor to serve with you in that noble endeavor.

Today, I'm here in a far different capacity: President-elect George W. Bush has designated me to lead the Justice Department, the principal executive voice on American justice and what must be, should be and continue to be the role model for justice the world over.

It's not only with honor, therefore, that I sit before you today, it's with an awesome sense of responsibility. For I know that if confirmed on my shoulders will rest the responsibility of upholding American justice, a tradition that strives to bring protection to the weak, freedom to the restrained — I wasn't going to introduce my grandson, Jimmy, at this point ...

(LAUGHTER)

Jimmy, what you've got going for you is there are a lot of grandparents on this panel, so.

He upstages me around the house, too. I'm not what I used to be.

Our tradition in the Justice Department that strives to bring protection to the weak, and freedom to the restrained, liberty to the oppressed, and security to every citizen.

Mine will be the same mantle carried by my predecessors, by Edmund Randolph, President George Washington's choice to be America's first attorney general; by Robert Kennedy, who found within himself the courage to surmount America's historic racial intolerance and to lend powerful assistance to the burgeoning civil rights movement.

I understand the responsibility of the attorney general's office. I revere it. I am humbled by it. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as the attorney general, I will spend every waking moment, and probably some sleeping moments as well, dedicated to ensuring that the Justice Department lives up to its heritage, not only enforcing the rule of law, but guaranteeing rights for the advancement of all Americans.

The attorney general must recognize this: The language of justice is not the reality of justice for all Americans.

My wife has helped me with anecdotes of hers from her experience to understand that there are millions of Americans who wonder if justice means hostility aimed at "just us." From 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.

No American should be turned away from a polling place because of the color of her skin or the sound of his name. No American should be denied access to public accommodations or a job as a result of a disability. No American family should be prevented from realizing the dream of home ownership in the neighborhood of their choice just because of skin color. No American should have the door to employment or educational opportunity slammed shut because of gender or race. No American should fear being stopped by police just because of skin color. And no woman should fear being threatened or coerced in seeking constitutionally protected health services.

I pledge to you that if I'm confirmed as attorney general, the Justice Department will meet its special charge. Injustice against individuals will not stand, no ifs, ands or buts, period.

The attorney general is charged with the solemn responsibility of serving as the attorney for the United States of America. The attorney general is the people's counsel. The attorney general must lead a professional, nonpartisan Justice Department that is uncompromisingly fair, defined by integrity and dedicated to upholding the rule of law.

I pledge to you that if I am confirmed as attorney general I will serve as the attorney general of all the people.

Today, I'd like to spend a few minutes telling you a bit about myself and my family and my beliefs. I am the grandson of immigrants. My father was a pastor and a college president. I was raised in Springfield, Missouri, in a home where all of God's children were welcome. In fact, my parents gave up their bed so many times that I thought that they actually knew all of God's children who came to visit. That lesson of hospitality and generosity was just one of many my parents urged on me.

I went to Yale University, where I dreamed of playing quarterback. When I got there, I discovered that either I was slow or everybody else was really fast. So I studied hard and I was fortunate enough to graduate and then attend the University of Chicago Law School.

For me, the law was about the promise of justice, the promise that under law, all men, all women, all people are equal.

While in Chicago, however, I did find one person I thought a little more equal than all the others, a woman of grace and charm and intellect and not insignificantly to me, as a young man, a woman that I thought was the most beautiful I'd ever seen. Only thing better than her, I thought, would be two of them.

(LAUGHTER)

After rebuffing me several times, my persistence overcame her better judgment and she has stuck with me for 33 years. And members of the committee, her name is Janet Ashcroft. I'm privileged to have her with me today.

I'm also pleased to tell you she.C. I'm also pleased, as well, to welcome her identical twin sister — they're not as identical as they used to be, but I could always tell them apart — Ann Giddings (ph), to the hearing today.

THURMOND: Tell her to raise her hand.

ASHCROFT: Yes.

(LAUGHTER)

ASHCROFT: Would the real Janet Ashcroft please stand up?

(APPLAUSE)

And Ann (ph), would you stand up with your sister, please? Thank you.

And I also wanted to introduce my daughter, Martha Grace Patterson (ph), who is an attorney from Kansas City — attorney and mother. My grandson, Jimmy Patterson, who has already made his presence known to you.

(LAUGHTER)

I regret that my eldest son, John Robert Ashcroft, whose faculty responsibilities at Forest Park Community College in St. Louis require his presence with students and cannot be with us today. Additionally, I regret that active duty responsibilities of my son, Andrew David Ashcroft, in the United States Navy, make impossible his attendance at this hearing.

I'm grateful for my family, they are wonderful people. They are not wonderful because of me, they are wonderful in spite of me. They are wonderful, a support and help to me. I thank God for them.

Upon graduating from law school, I returned to Missouri where I taught business law at Southwest Missouri State University. And after five years of teaching, I embarked on a quarter-century career in public service serving the people of Missouri.

In 1973, the then-governor, Kit Bond, appointed me as state auditor. Two years later, then-attorney general, Jack Danforth, appointed me assistant attorney general. I could not have had two more accomplished and distinguished mentors in public life than Jack and Kit.

Beginning in 1976, I was elected to the two terms as attorney general, then two terms as governor and, unfortunately — well, pardon me, just one term as the United States senator.

In the course of the six state-wide election campaigns, I came to know the people of Missouri very well. Missouri is representative of the rich diversity of the American people. The people of the Show Me state respond to the plain-spoken honesty and tolerance of men like Jack and Kit and, of course, Harry Truman. I'm pleased they elected me to state-wide office five times.

Eighteen years of my service in elective office have been focused on enforcing the law, six years enacting the law. I know the difference between enactment and enforcement, and my record shows that.

I am here today as the attorney general-designate, I know what the office requires. I've been an attorney general before. 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 example, in 1979, I 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 public school grounds.

On another occasion, contrary to the demands of pro-life advocates, I directed the state government of Missouri to maintain the confidentiality of abortion records because a fair reading of the law required it.

Throughout my tenure, I did my level best to enforce fully and faithfully the laws as they were written and to protect the legal interests of the state of Missouri when it was attacked and when the institutions of the state were attacked.

I did this without regard to any personal policy preferences. And when I left the attorney general's office, Missouri was a state more committed to fairness and justice.

From my experience, I also understand that the citizens' paramount civil right is safety.

Americans have the right to be secure in their persons, in their homes and in their communities. Gun violence, violence against women, drug crime, sexual predators, they all threaten to deny this most fundamental of rights to be secure in the person, property and community of individuals.

It is a core responsibility that government, led by the attorney general and the Department of Justice, cooperating with local law enforcement officials, will secure this right.

Children don't learn in schools overrun by neighborhood violence. Jobs will not be found in communities where criminals own the streets. No American who now feels threatened should have to move in order to live in a safer neighborhood.

My record on these issues is clear and unmistakable and my determination is unwavering. I will continue to work to deter and punish violent criminals who use guns. I will vigorously enforce federal domestic violence laws and utilize the Violence Against Women Act to assist states in this effort. Likewise, we will put new vigor into the fight against the illegal drug organizations and redouble our vigilance against terrorists.

During my service as both state attorney general and governor, we increased the number of full-time law enforcement officers by over 60 percent. We also lengthened prison sentences for criminals and significantly increased juvenile prosecutions for serious crimes. During my tenure as governor, we won passage for a Missouri victim's bill of rights. We secured $100 million in increased funding to combat violence against women. We also increased funding for anti-drug programs by almost 40 percent and 3/4 of that went for education, prevention and for treatment.

As a senator, I voted to deny the right to bear arms to those convicted of domestic violence. I supported increased funding for victims and helped enact legislation combating telemarketing scams against seniors. I supported mandatory background checks for gun show sales and increased federal funds for law enforcement at the local level. I've always been pleased by my support from law enforcement officers. Those who are here today — for whom I am grateful and those who in past times have endorsed me, most recently in my campaign for the Senate, by the Missouri Federation of Police Chiefs and

On the strength of this record and my commitment to the personal security and safety of the people of the United States of America, I pledge my commitment to secure the rights of all Americans to safety and security in their daily lives.

I also know from my service that a successful attorney general must be able to listen and find common ground with leaders of diversely held viewpoints. Few organizations reflect the diversity and strongly held views as much as the bipartisan National Association of Attorneys General.

I was honored when my fellow state attorneys general elected me president of that associate. I was humbled when they recognized me for outstanding service and presented me with the distinguished Wyeman (ph) Award.

I was similarly honored when the bipartisan National Governor's Association elected me to serve as their chairman.

I know something about the role of an attorney general. As I said earlier, the Justice Department has a special charge to protect the most vulnerable in our society from injustice. I take pride in my record of having vigorously enforced the civil rights laws as attorney general and governor.

Not only did I enforce the law, I took proactive steps to expand opportunity. I signed Missouri's first hate crime statute. By executive order, I made Missouri one of the first states to recognize Martin Luther King Day. I lead the fight to save Lincoln University, the Missouri University founded by African-American Civil War veterans. I took special care to expand racial and gender diversity in Missouri's courts. I appointed more African-American judges to the bench than any governor in Missouri history, including appointing the first African-American on the Western District Court of Appeals and the first African-American woman to the St. Louis County Circuit Court.

It was my to appoint the first two women to the Missouri Courts of Appeals and the first woman to the Missouri State Supreme Court, the only woman ever to have been appointed to that court.

No part of the Department of Justice is more important than the Civil Rights Division. I look forward to the president's appointment, with your advice and consent, of a talented and dedicated leader of that division. It is essential that such strong leadership pursue fair treatment for all Americans.

Before leaving the topic of civil rights, I want to address an issue that has been raised in the weeks since President Bush nominated me to this post. Some have suggested that my opposition to the appointment of Judge Ronnie White, an African-American Missouri Supreme Court judge, to a lifetime term on the federal bench was based on something other than my own honest assessment of his qualifications for the post.

During my eight years as governor, I was the appointing authority for judges. As I have just noted, I exercised the power with special care to promote racial diversity on the Missouri state court bench. Because of my experience as governor, when I became senator I approached the judicial confirmation process with both the appropriate deference due an executive and also a personal commitment to ensuring diversity on the bench.

Of the approximately 1,686 Clinton presidential nominees, both judicial and nonjudicial, voted on by the Senate, I voted to confirm all but 15. I voted to approve every Cabinet nomination made by the president of the United States.

Of President Clinton's 230 judicial nominees, I voted to confirm 218 of them. Perhaps it is needless to say, but I had philosophic disagreements with many, if not most of those judicial nominees. But I think the record of votes stands for itself.

On the floor of this body, I voted to confirm 26 out of 27 African-American judicial nominees. My opposition to Judge Ronnie White was well-founded. Studying his judicial record, considering the implications of his decisions, and hearing the widespread objections to his appointment from a large body of my constituents, I simply came to the overwhelming conclusion that Judge White should not be given lifetime tenure as a U.S. district court judge.

My legal review revealed a troubling pattern of his willingness to modify settled law in criminal cases; 53 of my colleagues reached the same conclusion. While I will not take time during my brief opening statement to discuss particular matters in Judge White's record that compelled me to my decision, I welcome the opportunity to discuss those matters later.

Another issue merits specific mention in these opening remarks, and that is the issue that we would identify with the case of Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion. As is well known, consistent with Republican United States attorneys general before me, I believe Roe v. Wade, as an original matter, was wrongly decided. I am personally opposed to abortion.

But as I have explained this afternoon, I well understand that the role of attorney general is to enforce the law as it is, not as I would have it. I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land. If confirmed as attorney general, I will follow the law in this area and in all other areas. The Supreme Court's decisions on this have been multiple, they have been recent and they have been emphatic.

I have been entrusted with public service for more than 25 years. It's a responsibility I have honored and a trust that, I believe, I have kept. During those years, I have not thought of myself as a public servant of some of the people, but a keeper of the public trust for all the people. If I become United States attorney general, I, again, commit to enforcing the law, all of the law for all of the people.

I appear here today as a man of faith, a man of common sense conservative beliefs, a man resolutely committed to the American idea. On occasion, some of you have disagreed with my views. You have done so respectfully, and I thank you. In turn, I hope that my disagreements with you have reciprocated your respect.

But whether we are conservatives or liberals, religious or secular, Republicans or Democrats, what we have in common is far greater and more important than what divides us. As Americans, we live under a Constitution, uniting us under a rule of law, a Constitution that allows us to live side by side in harmony, working for the mutual interest of all Americans and our communities.

It is indeed adherence to the rule of law that is the basis of our democracy. Never in the history of the world has any country so thoroughly dedicated itself to respecting laws, for it is in respecting laws that we respect the individual dignity and freedom of people. Nowhere in government is thorough obedience to the rule of law more powerfully evident and more urgently necessary than at the Department of Justice.

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by the United States Senate and to become the next United States attorney general, I pledge to you that strict enforcement of the rule of law will be the cornerstone of justice.

As a man of faith, I take my word and my integrity seriously. So when I swear to uphold the law, I will keep my oath, so help me God.

LEAHY: Thank you, Senator.

What we will do now, we will have in the first round of questioning ...

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

LEAHY: The committee will be in order. The committee will stand in recess until the police can restore order.

Officer, restore order.

The police will restore order.

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: The committee will also stay in order.

It will be the policy of the chairman to not allow any demonstrations for or against the nominee. You're all guests of the United States Senate. The 100 senators have a duty to vote for or against this nominee.

We will make up our mind based on the testimony within this room and the testimony of the nominee. We will not allow demonstrations of any sort. Everybody has a chance to write or call their individual senators for or against Senator Ashcroft. I thank the Capitol Police for restoring order.

Now, as I was saying, it will be the intent of the committee to have 15-minute rounds of each senator, doing the usual alternating on the first round. If there are further questions, we'll have shorter rounds after that. I have told the nominee if at any time he wants a break, of course, we will take one, again following normal time.

So I will start the questioning, and then we turn to Senator Hatch.

Senator Ashcroft, while you served in the Senate, you did not have an opportunity to vote on a nomination for attorney general, and, in effect, this is your first hearing that you have attended in any capacity in the Senate for an attorney general. But from 1995 to last year, as you pointed out, you voted for a number of President Clinton's nominees. You also chose to oppose and vote against a number of President Clinton's nominees to the executive branch; in both cases exercising the right any senator has.

But I want to explore with you what appears to be the, for want of a better term, the Ashcroft standard that you used when you reviewed presidential nominations, and I'll start with that of Bill Lann Lee.

You opposed the nomination of Bill Lann Lee to head the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. In November of 1997, you said, "This is what I've been sent to Washington to do; to evaluate whether or not an individual will be the kind of an administrator, in an agency, that people are entitled to have."

And then you opposed Mr. Lee because, as a civil rights lawyer, you thought, and I quote you again, "His pursuit of specific objectives that are important to him limit his capacity to have the balanced view of making the judgments that

And you also said, quote, "We don't need an individual who is trying to go against the Constitution as recently interpreted by the Supreme Court. We need someone who is going to say, 'I'm here to provide the administration"' — and that's an actual quote — "'I'm not here to amend the Constitution; I'm here to defend the Constitution.' That is what we need."

Now, Senator, using this Ashcroft standard, do you adhere to those views as setting the proper standard by which senators should evaluate presidential nominations?

ASHCROFT: Well, I'm pleased, first of all, Mr. Chairman, to thank you for the question. It's an important question. I thank you also for the way you're conducting this hearing. I appreciate the willingness to make sure that we have an opportunity to make these discussions in a setting which is conducive to understanding.

I think the ability to enforce the law as it is written and as it has been defined by the United States Supreme Court is very important. And when I have evaluated individuals, that's a very important criteria, especially for someone in an administrative or enforcement role and not in an enactment role.

Obviously, in the Senate we take a variety of positions because we — I say advisedly we — I'm no longer a senator, and I don't mean to be presumptive — but because in the debate and in the exchange we arrive at what the law will be.

I joined with eight other Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee in opposing Bill Lee's nomination to be assistant attorney general because I had serious concerns about his willingness to enforce the Adarand decision which was a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court.

He was an excellent litigant, but I had concerns that he viewed the Adarand decision as an obstacle rather than as a way in which the law was defined. Adarand held that government programs that establish racial preferences based on race are subject to strict scrutiny, that is the highest level of scrutiny under the Supreme Court's equal protection clause. Adarand was a landmark decision, it was substantial, it was important. Mr. Lee did not indicate a clear willingness to enforce the law based on that decision.

LEAHY: In the last part, if I could disagree with you on that. Mr. Lee testified on a number of occasions — in fact, testified under oath, including, incidentally directly in answer to your questions, that he would enforce the law as declared in Adarand.

And he also said, in direct answer to questions of this committee, he considered the Adarand decision of the Supreme Court as the controlling legal authority of the land, that he would seek to enforce it, he would give it full effect, but you say that he would not accept that decision and apply it fairly.

Was Bill Lann Lee lying under oath to this committee?

ASHCROFT: I certainly don't want to say that. I simply want to say that when asked what the standard was, he did not repeat the strict scrutiny standard of "narrowly tailored and directly related."

LEAHY: But how could he be more strict ...

ASHCROFT: He stated another standard, and when asked whether the standard which he applied would affect programs, he basically said it wouldn't have any effect on the programs of the federal government. Now in my judgment ...

LEAHY: But he said he would uphold it. I mean, what more could he say?

ASHCROFT: Well, frankly, he could have said that when applying a test, he would use the same test that the Supreme Court of the United States said should be used in strict scrutiny cases.

And, if he had, I believe that people would have been more likely to give credence — when Chairman Hatch — of course, he made an eloquent floor statement about this in speaking on this matter, but when Chairman Hatch delivered his remarks on this matter, I think he made clear what the rest of us felt, that while he said he considered the Adarand decision the law of the land, when he discussed the way in which it was implemented, it was clear that it would be applied in the way that the Supreme Court would require its application.

LEAHY: OK. Then I understand, as I said, the Ashcroft standard on that, but let's go a little further, let's take another step.

Like Bill Lann Lee, you have a long history of pursuing specific objectives that are important to you. And I would assume, like he, within the law. But throughout your public life as attorney general and governor of Missouri and as U.S. senator, you have opposed a women's constitutionally protected right to reproductive freedom and choice, even in cases of rape and incest, you have fought voluntary school desegregation, affirmative action and gay rights. When you were running for president in 1998, you were quoted as saying, quote, "There are voices in the Republican Party today who preach pragmatism, who champion conciliation, who counsel compromise. I stand here today to reject those deceptions." Again, your words.

Now, given that history, you can understand why some might be troubled by it. What assurances can you give us that you would serve as the chief enforcement officer of this country with the kind of balanced view that you acknowledge is necessary for top official in the Department of Justice, the balanced view that you said others must have before you would vote for their confirmation?

ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I would like to just have a chance to go back to that list, the litany of things ...

LEAHY: Of course.

ASHCROFT: ... and positions you attributed to me. You said I opposed voluntary desegregation of the schools. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't oppose desegregation, I repudiate segregation. I am in favor of integration.

When the state of Missouri was asked to fund, with hundreds of billions of dollars, a program imposed by a federal court ...

LEAHY: Hundreds of billions?

ASHCROFT: Hundreds of millions of dollars, pardon me. I thank you for correcting me. I've been in Washington so long, I've forgot how to say millions. I've just started saying billions.

(LAUGHTER)

LEAHY: I'm more interested in what you said at the time of the desegregation orders in Missouri.

ASHCROFT: I opposed a mandate by the federal government that the state, which had done nothing wrong, found guilty of no wrong, that they should be asked to pay this very substantial sum of money over a long course of years. And that's what I opposed.

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.

Now, while I was the Missouri attorney general, I inherited a desegregation lawsuit in St. Louis from my predecessor in office, Jack Danforth. The state had been sued. I argued on behalf of the state of Missouri that it could not be found legally liable for segregation in St. Louis schools because the state had never been a party to the litigation.

Now, one of the responsibilities of an attorney general, in my judgment, is that when the entity which you represent legally is attacked or sued, you should defend it. Here, the court sought to make the state responsible and liable for the payment of these very substantial sums of money, and the state had not been found really guilty of anything.

I also took the position, on behalf of the state, that the court's inter-district remedy in that case was inappropriate because there was never any finding of an inter-district violation.

Now, to me, I just want to try and make it clear, it's been mentioned on several occasions, and I just think I want to have the opportunity to say with clarity that I do not support segregation; I support integration.

I happened to have been a young person in school when Brown v. Board of Education was announced. The schools in my town had been segregated. They were immediately integrated. And I support that. And so I would be very pleased — there was a list of things that were similarly ...

LEAHY: And we'll go back to them, and I will make absolutely sure, I can assure you, that you will have the time to go on them.

LEAHY: I would point out, though, that on the case you speak about, the federal district court threatened to hold the state in contempt if it didn't submit a specific desegregation plan within 60 days and said, quote, "The court can draw only one conclusion: The state has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of this court."

What I'm driving at ...

ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, I'd be glad to respond to that if you'd like to have me do so.

LEAHY: I will. Hold on one moment.

ASHCROFT: I take these very seriously ...

LEAHY: Well, go ahead. Respond to that.

ASHCROFT: Well, you know, if the state hadn't been made a party to the litigation and the state is being asked to do things to remedy the situation, I think it's important to ask the opportunity for the state to have a, kind of, due process and the protection of the law that an individual would expect.

A person swears to uphold the law of the state and to become the attorney general, when the state is attacked, I think it's important to expect the attorney general of the state to defend the state. Now over time it may be that if there had been a different structure, something different would have happened.

LEAHY: Did you consider — and this you actually can answer yes or no — did you consider the district court was fair in suggesting that you, on behalf of the state of Missouri, that you were basically dragging your feet? Do you think that was fair?

ASHCROFT: I think it's unfair to characterize a person as being uncooperative if they are asked to indemnify a situation when there was no opportunity for them to originally be a party to the lawsuit and if they weren't in a position to defend themselves. That would be unfair.

LEAHY: So you found the criticism of you by the court to be unfair?

ASHCROFT: Frankly, I thought the ruling by the court that the state would have to pay when there was not showing of a state violation to be unfair.

LEAHY: Thank you, but now my question — do you feel that their criticism of you in your role as attorney general was unfair?

ASHCROFT: Would you mind — this is 20-some years ago ...

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

Would you consider that unfair?

ASHCROFT: Yes.

LEAHY: Thank you.

Now, Dr. Satcher — David Satcher — you opposed his nomination to be our surgeon general even though the Senate eventually approved him. In your speech, you said, "Dr. Satcher says he has a mainstream approach; he's going to pursue consensus." But then you went on to say that you didn't believe that.

You told the Senate that he was, "a person of incredibly strong medical credentials, in terms of his expertise and his capacity, but you said the United States has participated in confirming nominations or ratifying proposals without looking carefully at the ethics involved of the guys that are being challenged."

So the opposition to Dr. Satcher, by your own statement, was not based on his professional qualifications. Indeed, is it fair to say that applying an Ashcroft standard you were articulating as a U.S. senator that you are going to oppose a nominee who you believed to be out of step with the mainstream of America, to use the words you used in your speech.

ASHCROFT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to express my concerns here. Dr. David Satcher supported a number of activities that I thought were inconsistent with the ethical obligations of a medical doctor and a physician, particularly the surgeon general, because I think the surgeon general is an individual to whom America must look for guidance in terms of not just technical expertise, but the kind of ethics that ought to accompany people who have life-and-death decision-making in their hands. We all know how important the medical profession is.

LEAHY: And you disagreed with those ethics and values.

ASHCROFT: Yes, for example, he supported an AIDS study on pregnant women in Africa where some patients were given placebos, even though a treatment existed to limit transmission of AIDS from the mother to the child. In my understanding, this would not be an acceptable strategy for a study in the United States, but he was willing to support the study under those terms in Africa. That was a matter of deep concern to me.

Let me — if I might — he lobbied Congress to continue an anonymous study testing newborn infants' blood for the AIDS virus, without informing the mother if the test was positive. Now, I have real problems with a situation where someone wants to be the surgeon general of the United States, wants to learn about whether or not there's AIDS present in a medical situation, and not tell the people involved about the AIDS virus.

ASHCROFT: This is a matter of deep concern to me. The idea of sending fatally infected babies home with their unwitting mothers, even after a treatment had been identified for AIDS, to me was an idea that was unacceptable for an individual who wanted to be the leader in terms of the medical community and a role model in the United States. It was on those grounds that I made the decision.

Now, it's my decision and I'm not trying to duck responsibility for the decision. But those are the facts as I understood them, and that's the reason I made the decision.

LEAHY: So it'd be fair to say you disagreed with his ethical choices and his values, and you felt you should vote against him because of that.

ASHCROFT: I think it's fair to say that I believed he violated the ethical values that are characteristic ...

LEAHY: I'm not trying to parse words, and I just want to make sure I understand, because I'm trying to get this ...

(CROSSTALK)

ASHCROFT: It was a shortfall in his adherence to ethical values of the American medical community that I think were ...

LEAHY: And because you disagreed with what you saw as his ethics and values, you voted against him. I'm not trying to place words in your mouth, I want to make sure I understand.

ASHCROFT: Well, then maybe ...

LEAHY: Trying to give you the fairest ...

ASHCROFT: Well, maybe if you will let me state my words ...

LEAHY: Sure.

ASHCROFT: ... then you don't have to worry about placing words in my mouth.

(LAUGHTER)

I believed that his willingness to accept a standard for medical research in Africa, on African women, that would not be acceptable in the United States was an ethical lapse that was very important. I, secondly, believed his willingness to send AIDS-infected babies home with their mothers without telling their mothers about the infection of the children was another ethical problem that was very serious.

Based on those standards, which I believe are less than acceptable standards in the medical community in this country, I voted against him.

LEAHY: That's what I was trying to get you to say. Thank you.

ASHCROFT: I'm sorry.

LEAHY: Maybe we were speaking past each other. But thank you. Senator Hatch?

HATCH: Well, thank you.

Senator Ashcroft, the principal argument raised against your nomination by some people is because of your firmly held personal beliefs, which happen not to be consistent with the views of the abortion right groups, the People for the American Way, and other similar interest groups; that you will not enforce the laws of the land as attorney general. That seems to be the argument.

Now, your record, however, which the special interest groups seem to ignore, seems to provide clear evidence to the contrary. For example, as attorney general for the state of Missouri, you repeatedly issued legal opinions regarding how a particular statute should be interpreted and enforced.

Time and again, Senator, your record reflects your dedication to enforcing the law, regardless of your particular views in areas like the environment, abortion, guns, religion and rights.

Let me give just a couple of examples, and you gave some other examples in your opening remarks. You issued an opinion in 1981 that the Missouri Division of Health could not release information to the public on the number of abortions performed by particular hospitals. You determined that the state legislature made clear its intent that such reports remain confidential and be used only for statistical purposes. You also determined that in order to protect the patient- client privilege access to health data maintained by the Division of Health, that it only be subject to review by public health officers, something that people in the right-to-life community disagreed with you on. That's correct, isn't it?

ASHCROFT: It is correct.

HATCH: You also, in Attorney General Opinion Number 50 — I'm just going to mention two, there are all kinds of these.

ASHCROFT: Well, don't ask me to quote them. We had 800 or more.

HATCH: I won't ask you to quote them. Let me see what I can do.

"In Attorney General Opinion Number 50, dated March 2, 1977, Attorney General Ashcroft issued an opinion, which interpreted state law to prohibit prosecuting attorneys from carrying concealed weapons, even while engaged in the discharge of their official duties. Attorney General Ashcroft reached this opinion, despite the fact that some prosecuting attorneys conducted their own investigations, and as a result faced dangerous situations." That's true too, isn't it?

ASHCROFT: Yes, sir, it is true. And it may not have been my personal judgment that their safety was best regarded by that, but the law was, we thought, clear.

HATCH: That's what the law said, and so you enforced it. I mean, I have to admit I don't agree with that law either. They ought to be able to protect themselves. But I could go on and on with further examples, but I want to hear from you.

The special interest groups who have sharply attacked you, seem to ignore these instances where you have interpreted the laws as written, despite your personal beliefs.

Now, if confirmed as attorney general of the United States, will you enforce the laws of this land irrespective of your personal beliefs?

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

So I spent 24 years in elective public offices as — the auditor's office in Missouri is really a compliance office. We audit not only for financial integrity but for compliance with legal mandates to the agencies. I spent two years there as state auditor, and then the eight years as attorney general and eight years as governor.

And there are other things you do as governor, but you also are a law enforcement individual. The executive branch does that. And most of my time in government has been in enforcement. And I'm pleased to say that I have enforced the law faithfully to the best of my ability in those settings.

With regard to Mr. Bill Lann Lee — I happen to like Mr. Lee, but I voted against him. Not because I wouldn't have supported him for any number of other positions; I would have, because he's a sincerely dedicated, decent, honorable man.

But when he appeared before the committee, I have to say that one of the problems that I had at that particular time was that I was concerned, because of his prior background, that he force consent decrees on local municipalities, cities, counties and other governments by bringing very expensive lawsuits that would cost millions of dollars to defend where they'd have to cave in to consent decrees that would require quotas that were really wrong under the Adarand and other decisions by the Supreme Court.

I can remember — and like I say, while I have the highest personal regard for Mr. Lee's accomplishments when he was in the private sector, I was extremely concerned about his interpretation of civil rights laws.

His lifetime's work was devoted to preserving constitutionally suspect, race-conscious public policies that sort and divide citizens by race. For instance, Mr. Lee, when he appeared before the committee, interpreted the Adarand v. Pena case to mean that racial preferences are permitted if, quote, "conducted in a limited and measured manner," unquote.

Now, as I noted on the floor of the Senate, his statement mis- stated the court's fundamental holding on such programs that are presumptively unconstitutional. And unfortunately, I have to say, that his recent record indicates that's what he has been doing in a large degree, or at least to a significant degree, in his position in the Justice Department.

So there was a legitimate reason to vote against Bill Lann Lee, even though I think all of us would admit he's a nice person and probably could fill any number of other positions in government. I suspect that that's the reason you voted against him, and I can see why others might have voted for him, but the fact is, I had to do what I thought was the law. What about you?

ASHCROFT: Well, frankly, I struggled to say that perhaps earlier, not as effectively as you have just said it or as you said it on the floor. When he indicated that the test of whether a program would survive strict scrutiny was that it be limited and measured, he really basically was expanding the test substantially.

The district court on remand in that case said it, and I quote "is difficult to envisage a race-based classification that is narrowly tailored." But Mr. Lee, when asked if he could identify a single racial preference program that was unconstitutionally suspect, could only identify one out of all the programs.

I think the key, though, is the material that you presented at the time, which I found persuasive, and his statement of a test for programs, which was just monumentally different than the test provided for by the court in the Adarand case.

HATCH: It's been mentioned that you opposed certain aspects of federal court decrees surrounding the desegregation of schools in Kansas City. Well, Senator Ashcroft, isn't it time that in Missouri v. Jenkins, which is a poster-child case for what many think is judicial activism, that the Supreme Court found that the district court had exceeded its authority by ordering remedies beyond its power? Was your position not vindicated by the Supreme Court after some 18 years of litigation?

ASHCROFT: Well, very frankly, the Jenkins case was a five-four case ...

HATCH: Right.

ASHCROFT: ... and it was a case in which the judge imposing a tax was upheld in imposing the tax ...

HATCH: Yes, it wasn't the Congress the imposed the tax, it was the judge.

ASHCROFT: No, nor was it the state legislature or the city council.

HATCH: That's right. So it was a legitimate argument.

ASHCROFT: Obviously, it's a legitimate argument. And I hope these hearings will allow me to clarify the fact that a state attorney general has a responsibility to defend the state when it is asked by other parties to open its treasury to fund one thing or another.

The situation in Kansas City, at the order of the federal district court judge, was tragic, in terms of the amount of money spent. And really, frankly, this hadn't become — this really wasn't that much of a partisan issue; it became clear that this was not helping children, but it was a very, very serious diversion of the state's resources, in a way which made difficult the achievement of other objectives.

For example, busing had strong opponents in Missouri, Democrat and Republican, black and white. Freeman Bosley, St. Louis' first African-American mayor, opposed forced busing, as did Democrat state Attorney General Jay Nixon. This forced busing that was opposed is not on their part or on my part an opposition to integration. It was an opposition to a counterproductive, inappropriate effort to impose on the state, transportation of students to and from, at great expense and at little benefit educationally to the students.

HATCH: Well, I've heard some arguments against you, because of your firmly held religious beliefs. In fact, I've seen it over and over in the press in this country.

When Vice President Gore selected our esteemed colleague, Joseph Lieberman, to be his running mate, many individuals and organizations supported that choice and applauded Senator Lieberman for his strong religious beliefs. I have to say, I felt the same way.

Unfortunately, many left-wing groups have not been as supportive of your religious beliefs and convictions. Almost like it's OK for a liberal, but it's not OK for somebody who is conservative.

Personally, I, as a Christian, am very unsettled by the different treatment accorded you and Senator Lieberman. I think it's wrong.

Now, the job of the attorney general of the United States is an extremely important job, and it is to enforce the laws enacted by Congress. The only issue for me is the manner in which you execute the job, or will execute the job.

Doesn't matter to me whether you're Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever, or an atheist or agnostic. I'm sure that goes for — I hope that I'm sure that that goes to the rest of our fellow senators. In fact, the Constitution of the United States specifically forbids religious qualifications for office.

Now, having gone through that type of, I think, offensive criticism, which is continuing right up to today, is there anything in your religious beliefs that would impair you from faithfully and fully fulfilling your responsibilities as attorney general of the United States?

ASHCROFT: Well, I don't believe it's appropriate to have a test based on one's religion for a job. I think Article V of the Constitution makes that clear.

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. I do not believe that to be the case.

Can I just say a word about this? America has struggled in this respect for quite some time, and people who come from different religious and faith perspectives have emerged at one time and another, and when they have, there have been questions about this. This is not new.

Before I was old enough to vote, but when I was old enough to be very active in watching elections, in 1960, the first person became president of the United States from a Catholic perspective. In my part of the country there were people who thought, "He will not be free. He will have to do whatever the pope tells him to do. He will be a client of a foreign individual." You know, I heard that talk. But America got by that talk, and I think it's good that we did.

And my own view is that, yes, people won't understand different kinds of individuals from time to time. Most people hailed, as I did, the elevation to national candidate status of my college classmate and former colleague here in the United States Senate, Joe Lieberman. We need more people like Joe Lieberman in public office, not fewer people like Joe Lieberman in public office.

But I was the first person from my faith denomination to be elected to a statewide public office, as attorney general. I was the first governor ever from my denomination.

I was the first senator from my denomination. I understand these things, and I think this is something we work our way through as Americans. And we're going to come to an understanding that well-intentioned people of good faith, when they raise their hand and take an oath to support the Constitution and enforce the law, they do it.

And as I look back across America and this heritage — and it's been focused on different kinds of people at different times — I, frankly, don't see that our faith has been misplaced. As I look across — when we had our first Catholic president, we didn't suffer.

So, you know, I think this is something we will work our way through.

HATCH: My time's just about up. Let me just ask you one last question.

You've publicly stated your agreement with the law of Adarand, which states that all racial classifications made by the government must be able to withstand strict scrutiny.

You were also a sponsor of the Civil Rights Act of 1997. This Civil Rights Act basically seeks to implement the Supreme Court's holding in Adarand with respect to federal racial classifications. The Civil Rights Act of 1997 does state that affirmative action, such as encouraging qualified women and minorities to apply for government contracts and employment, would not be affected.

Now what sort of affirmative action programs would you support, if confirmed, and what would be your plans for the Civil Rights Division?

And my time is up.

ASHCROFT: Well, very frankly, there are lots of ways that are acceptable, and some have been working their way through the courts and I think will be sustained.

The president-elect of the United States has identified a series of things that he calls affirmative access. I think those are good ideas. They've been in place now in Texas and in California and in Florida and are making their way in the educational system where access is so very important.

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.

There are a wide variety of things. We can size government opportunities so that people can bid who don't have the megastrength of the big, old-time contractors but some new entrants into the marketplace.

These are all policy decisions that I believe this next administration — President-elect Bush is eager to consider. And, certainly, the affirmative access that he's described is something that I think the entire country would be well-served to work on.

HATCH: Thank you, Senator Ashcroft.

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?

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?"

LEAHY: I'm amazed at that.

ASHCROFT: Pardon?

LEAHY: Well, I'm amazed at that — at any more than ...

ASHCROFT: I understand, and I accept the opportunity to say with clarity that not only will I represent that I will enforce the law, but there is some record here of my two years as auditor, eight years as attorney, eight years in the governor's office, that when the law is clear and decided, that I enforce the law.

LEAHY: Senator Kennedy?

KENNEDY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

If we could, Senator Ashcroft, come back to the St. Louis situation. Let me just spell out very briefly, as you remember, but just so that we have the common understanding.

In the '70s, more than 20 years after the Brown v. Board of Education, St. Louis still maintained a segregated school system. Finally, responding to the lawsuits brought by the parents, the courts stepped in and ruled the state of Missouri and the St. Louis School Board were jointly responsible for violating the Constitution by creating and maintaining segregated and grossly unequal schools.

The court ruled that the state had maintained an elaborate set of laws to enforce segregation. At one time, the state law even forced black children who lived in the suburbs and in white city neighborhoods to be bussed to all-black inner-city schools. According to the court, the state had completely abdicated its constitutional duty to desegregate the schools.

You disagreed with that finding, but despite your repeated appeals, requests for injunctions, three denials of review by the Supreme Court over a four-year period, the final ruling of the courts were not changed. So you had your chance in the courts to make the case that you've just made here and rejected on each time.

Let me just continue.

(CROSSTALK)

Now the city of St. Louis and its schools and surrounding 23 county districts all accepted the ruling. They negotiated a model desegregation plan, relying on the voluntary public school. Black students from city schools could volunteer, transfer to white suburban schools. White suburban students would have the opportunity to transfer to magnet schools run by the city.

In fact, the plan has been a lifeline for tens of thousands of students, with graduation rates that are consistently twice as high for the transferred students, more of them going on to college, and over 11,000 students are still using it today, including 900 suburban students.

Now, given the voluntary nature of the desegregation plan and the fact that the city and country school districts all agreed to it, how do you justify your relentless opposition to the voluntary school desegregation and, sort of, a scorched earth legal strategy to try and block it?

ASHCROFT: Senator Kennedy, first of all, the litany of charges that were made about the state's activities included a rather loose definition of things that the state had done prior to Brown v. Board of Education. Virtually none of the offensive activities described in what you charged happened in the state after Brown v. Board of Education. As a matter of fact, most of them had been eliminated far before Brown v. Board of Education.

Secondly, in saying that the city maintained a segregated school system into the '70s, is simply a way of saying that after Brown v. Board of Education when citizens started to flee the city and move to the county — and you'll know that St. Louis, for a number of decades now, has been a place that has lost more population than virtually any other city as people moved into the county — the schools, as people changed their location, began to be more intensely segregated. That was after the rules of segregation had been lifted, and it was not a consequence of any state activity.

Then I would just simply say that I think it's unfair to call the program totally voluntary and to suggest that we opposed a voluntary program when the thing was that the state was going to have to pay for everything people volunteered to do.

Now the situation was basically this: The county school districts agreed with the city school districts that they could confess judgment and get a lot of money from the state of Missouri by saying, "If we'll just say that we'll do this voluntary plan, the state will have to pay for the situation."

So you had a situation something like this — and I don't have all the material that you all have, but let me try and recreate it from my memory.

KENNEDY: I want to give you a fair chance, but we've got ...

ASHCROFT: Well ...

KENNEDY: Go ahead.

ASHCROFT: Thank you for your fairness. Because when the machine gun of charges comes out, I want to try and respond to all the lead.

KENNEDY: Well, let me give you one point that you've just raised, because I want to move on. In earlier, you said, "Well, the state wasn't involved."

ASHCROFT: Well ...

KENNEDY: Well, now let me just read you. "Now, 1980, in the Adams v. United States, the city board and the state were jointly responsible for maintaining segregated school system. 1982, we again note that the state and the city board."

My question is, how costly was this going to be, Senator Ashcroft, before you were going to say that those kids going in lousy schools, that you were going to do something about it? You were there as an attorney general, you were there as governor and did virtually nothing about it. And a new governor came in, Mel Carnahan, and resolved that and basically accepted it.

You used every kind of device to oppose it. You have the Economist magazine, which is not a liberal magazine, saying, "The campaign" — and you were involved in a campaign — "quickly degenerated in 1984" — when this was still before you — "into a contest over who was most opposed to the plan for voluntary racial desegregation at St. Louis schools.

"Mr. McNary claimed that Mr. Ashcroft had not done enough to defeat the plan in court. Mr. Ashcroft countered that Mr. McNary was a closet supporter of racial integration. Both ran openly bigoted advertisement on television."

This is what we have in terms of Gary Orfield (ph), the consultant for the court in St. Louis, a leading expert on desegregation cases, testifies against desegregation. He said that you had no positive vision, constantly stirred up racial divisions over the questions.

Finally, rather than provide the conciliatory leadership, in 1990 a judicial order described the recent state filings — recent state filings — as, "Extremely antagonistic and said that state was ignoring the real objective of this case, a better education for the city's students, to personally embark on a litigious pursuit of righteousness."

Now, that's a pretty tough record.

That's a pretty tough record.

Where in your priority would the rights of the interests of those black students that were trying to get a decent education? We've just heard you about what the cost was going to be, how you had a responsibility as an attorney general to protect the taxpayer. What about the interest of those black students? And the fact that you have those courts, repeatedly time, time, time again said that you failed to even offer an alternative. Did you offer an alternative?

ASHCROFT: Now may I respond?

KENNEDY: Sure.

ASHCROFT: Thank you.

In all of the cases where the court made an order, I followed the order, both as attorney general and as governor. It was my judgment that when the law was settled and spoken that the law should be obeyed.

At one point, I had to detail the deputy attorney general of the state of Missouri to the state treasurer's office in order to urge the state treasurer to write the check. And the treasurer wrote the check. His name has been used in this hearing, but I won't use it. But it was because I explained to him that when the court spoke, the state had to respond and obey the law.

Now, the framework for the system was that the state was to pay the city for the students who left, and the state was to pay again, in the county, for the students who had left and gone out there. It was not a way to integrate the city's schools.

The facts which you specific show that the brightest students left the city, leaving the students in those schools behind with fewer people aspiring to college graduation and going on further for education, not improving those schools.

I'm pleased to respond to your question about my priority for education. During my time as governor, funding for education in the state of Missouri went up about 70 percent. The vast majority of all state resources that were new and available went to education, because I believe in education.

In Missouri v. Jenkins, the case in Kansas City ...

KENNEDY: Well, could we get on — I'm glad — I don't think we've ...

(CROSSTALK)

HATCH: Let him answer the question.

KENNEDY: All right, if he wants to take the — the question wasn't about Kansas City. I asked about St. Louis.

HATCH: It was about education.

ASHCROFT: Fine.

KENNEDY: And if he wants to talk about Kansas City ...

ASHCROFT: I would like to talk about Kansas City, but it's not ...

(CROSSTALK)

ASHCROFT: I'd rather answer your question than talk about Kansas City.

KENNEDY: That isn't the question, but if you want to talk about it.

ASHCROFT: Well, I'll just give you an idea ...

SESSIONS: You challenged his interest in education, Senator Kennedy, you suggested he didn't care about children.

(CROSSTALK)

LEAHY: All right, gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen.

HATCH: Let him answer the question.

LEAHY: First, I would note that whatever questions are asked, if the witness feels that he's not given time to answer all the questions he will be given time, as will senators be given time to do follow-up questions.

KENNEDY: Well, I had one other area to cover, but whatever you want to do, John.

ASHCROFT: Well, you're the senator.

KENNEDY: Well, you're the ...

(LAUGHTER)

ASHCROFT: Well, you know, I look forward to working with this committee upon confirmation, I do, and I don't know when there was last an attorney general that had previously served as a member of this committee. And, frankly, I think we can work together and I want to. I don't want any rancor to characterize our relationship, and I'm very pleased to defer.

KENNEDY: Let me just go on one, hopefully, time, and this is on the questions of voter registration, vetoes, your vetoes on the voter registration. We talked about this.

You know, obviously we've learned in this presidential campaign every vote does count, and obviously the procedures in Florida and across the nation, plagued by inequities, often result in disenfranchisement of poor and minority. The Justice Department is conducting the investigation whether any of the voting irregularities that occurred in Florida violating the federal Voting Rights Act. So if confirmed, you'll have a responsibility for completing the investigation and bringing suit if any violations are found.

Now, your actions as governor of Missouri — I'm concerned about your willingness about where you might go with this. Now, let me mention this.

As governor you appointed election boards in both St. Louis County and St. Louis city. The county which surrounds much of the city is relatively affluent, 86 percent white, votes heavily Republican. The city's poorer, 48 percent black, votes heavily Democratic.

Like other communities across the state, the county election board has a standard procedure for training volunteers from nonpartisan groups, like the League of Women Voters, to assist the voter registration. And according to the press reports, the county trained as many as 1,500 volunteers, but the number of trained volunteers in the city was zero, because your appointed city board refused to follow the standard practice used in the county and throughout the rest of the state.

As a result, the county had a voter registration rate higher than the state average and considerably higher than the city. Now concerned about the obvious disparity, the legislature passed bills in 1988 and '89 to require the city to use the same training procedures as the county and the rest of the state. On both occasions, you vetoed these bills.

In 1988, you claimed it was unfair to impose this procedure just on the city of St. Louis, and in '89, the legislature responded by passing a bill applying the procedure to the entire state, but you vetoed it again. And you cited concerns about voter fraud, even though the Republican director of elections in the county was quoted as saying, "It worked well here and I don't know why it wouldn't work in the city as well." That makes sense. The only difference between the county and city is that the city is poorer, more heavily African- American, and votes Democratic.

The question, rather than working to expand the right to vote, you and the appointed election board in the city did all you could to block the increased voter registration. The results of your stonewalling tactics are clear: By the time you left the governor's mansion, the city of St. Louis had the lowest voting registration in the state, 15 percent lower than St. Louis County. Eight years later, Governor Carnahan's reforms in the St. Louis city election, and now the rate for St. Louis city has increased dramatically.

Why did you feel that you had to not provide the same kind of registrars in the city as you did in the county and as they did in the rest of the part of the state, particularly when those groups indicated their willingness to provide those services?

ASHCROFT: Well, thank you for the question, Senator Kennedy. And let me just say, that I am concerned that all Americans have the opportunity to vote. I'm committed to the integrity of the ballot box. I know what it means to individuals who are deprived of the opportunity to vote, and I know what it means to candidates who have been the subject of elections where the integrity of the ballot box has been violated. I have personal experience in that respect.

I vetoed a number of bills as governor, and, frankly, I don't say that I can remember all the details of all of them. Accordingly, I reviewed my veto message and recalled that I was urged to veto these bills by the responsible local election officials. I also appeared to anticipate the Supreme Court's recent decision, as I expressed a concern that voting procedures be unified statewide.

I would like to read my relatively short veto statements from the two relevant bills. And these are statements which I made when I was governor.

KENNEDY: OK.

ASHCROFT: And it's quite sometime ...

KENNEDY: And if you could elaborate on the local officials that urged you to veto them, the reason why they did that. If you could add that, I'd appreciate it. And my time then is up.

ASHCROFT: "Conference Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 1333" — I believe it is — "is vetoed and not approved for the following reasons. The Comprehensive Election Act of 1977 was intended to simplify, clarify and harmonize the laws governing elections. Section 115.003 revised statutes of Missouri, 1988, the General Assembly has directed that the act be construed and applied so as to accomplish this purpose.

"The few amendments to this law since 1977 have been acted only as necessary to further statewide policy goals. Election bills approved by the general assembly this year continue this trend by standardizing voter registration and other election procedures.

"Conference Committee Substitute for House Bill 1333 stands in marked contrast to the overall trend of our election laws. It would single out one election authority and mandate for that one authority that certain procedures be followed. I see no compelling reason to impose this special requirement on the St. Louis Election Board.

"There are more than 150 permanent registration sites spread throughout the city of St. Louis. Each of these sites is manned by bipartisan, board-appointed registrars and is in a public facility. Before every election, the board opens an additional 84 special registration sites manned by bipartisan registration teams at places such as shopping centers, churches and union halls. The success of the St. Louis Election Board in promoting voter registration is evidenced by the fact that the city has a registration rate of 73 percent compared to the national average of 69 percent.

"I join with the proponents of this bill in encouraging the St. Louis Board of Election commissioners to review its present policy and to work to ensure that every resident has a clear opportunity to register to vote. But even as we work to increase voter registration, we must preserve the right of the voters to participate in fair elections.

"The bipartisan St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners, St. Louis Board of Aldermen President Tom Villa (ph), and St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach (ph), have expressed concerns about the impact of this bill on the democratic process and urged me to veto it."

I might add that Tom Villa (ph) was a noted Democratic leader in the state of Missouri from the city of St. Louis. The Villa (ph) family had a historic, sort of, reputation. I don't know whether some of you close to St. Louis will remember that.

St. Louis circuit attorney George Peach (ph) was a Democrat who was the prosecutor in the St. Louis area, so we had a bipartisan county election board said, "This is not good; this is not right."

You had the Democrat circuit attorney saying, "I have reservations about this; this shouldn't be done." You have the St. Louis Board of Aldermen president — an almost totally Democrat organization, the Board of Aldermen, City of St. Louis, is about as Democrat as the Democratic National Committee.

(LAUGHTER)

They all urged me to veto this bill.

Now, I do think that when you look at the recent Supreme Court rulings pushing us more towards uniformity, that it's important to understand that creating and carving out special responsibilities in a variety of settings is something we shouldn't do.

"The people of St. Louis," I went on to say, "have an absolute and fundamental right to open, fair, and non-partisan elections. My veto of this bill today will protect that right. For the above and foregoing reasons, Conference Committee Substitute for House Bill Number 1333 is returned and not approved."

The second veto message is — I'd be happy to read another one.

KENNEDY: No — Mr. Chairman, it's not necessary.

The point, Senator, if I could just add and get your response and then I'll — you vetoed it because it was special legislation for St. Louis. Then, the next year the legislature said, "OK, because you haven't done anything in St. Louis, we'll apply it statewide." That's what I can't understand.

I can see you saying, "It's special legislation, so we won't do it for St. Louis because it's special." Now you've just mentioned the Supreme Court wants uniformity. The state legislature said, "OK, let's get uniformity." And you've vetoed that as well. That's the point, if you could address that.

ASHCROFT: Thank you very much. It just takes a lot longer to answer these charges than it does to make them, and I apologize for that.

(LAUGHTER)

LEAHY: Well, all right. Gentlemen, just a moment. I want him to answer that, but I also point out, the witness said that sometimes the charges, or the questions, come I think machine gun fashion was his expression.

I can assure you, the chair will make sure that you are given time to answer all of the questions. If, when you review the transcript, there's further answers you want, you'll be given the time to respond to that. And of course, the senator asking his question can follow up. But I don't want any implication being given that you would not have a chance to answer all the questions asked.

ASHCROFT: I appreciate that very much, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize if any of my remarks would indicate that you wouldn't fairly give me the opportunity to respond.

This is the veto message from the next year: "House Committee substitute for House Bill Number 200 is vetoed and not approved for the following reasons: The bill would require election authorities to permit, quote, 'any recognized non-partisan civic organization, political, fraternal, religious or service organization interested in voter registration and education to conduct registration at any reasonable place selected by the organization.' The election authority is required to have a deputy registration official present at the place. The bill provides that these deputies may be volunteers.

"I encourage all qualified Missourians to register and vote in elections. I also encourage election authorities to improve voter registration efforts by keeping registration offices open for longer hours and by conducting registration drives at special registration sites.

"As I noted last year, in St. Louis alone, the success of the St. Louis election board is apparent from the fact that the city has a registration rate of 73 percent, compared to the national average of 69 percent. Efforts to promote voter registration must be balanced with the need to ensure that the voters participate in fair elections. This bill would tie the hands of election authorities and give private organizations a virtually unbridled right to add names to state voter registration rolls.

"As noted in a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial, 'There is no overwhelming reason to allow an individual group of any political persuasion to register people. With the numerous instances of voter fraud that the city has experienced in recent years, election officials should be cautious about their procedures. The registration apparatus must be available to everyone, but it also must be protected jealously to prevent its abuse.' The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, quote, 'Keeping Registration Fair,' close quote.

"Election authorities are free to participate ..." — August 28. This was an editorial, not — I don't believe this editorial was about this specific measure. I don't want to create that impression.

If it is about it, that be fine.

"Election authorities are free to participate with private organizations, now, to conduct voter registration. Giving the overriding need to promote honesty and integrity in the process, I see no compelling reason to require that they do so in every instance in which a request is made.

"For the above and foregoing reasons, House Committee substitute for House Bill number 200 is returned and not approved. Respectfully submitted, signed John Ashcroft, governor."

LEAHY: Senator Thurmond?

THURMOND: When outgoing Attorney General Janet Reno appeared before this committee for confirmation, I expressed concerns about her opposition to the death penalty, but I still supported her. Those views did not prevent her from being confirmed. Do you think most attorney generals have had to impose some law that they did not personally support?

ASHCROFT: Senator, I am virtually sure that everyone who has served in the attorney general's office has had to impose or enforce laws that he or she would not personally support.

The definition of personal support is almost inconsistent with laws, because laws are compromises of what people decide to do in the legislative process where we have a give-and-take in terms of what's finally achieved. So very seldom is there any law that's identical to the way any of us would write it completely.

So law enforcement officers uniformly, not just those in uniform, but those uniformly across the board, I think, always have to enforce laws that they wouldn't personally have written.

THURMOND: During much of the Clinton administration, the number of gun prosecutioners declined. For example, I single out prosecutions for using a gun to commit a felony dropped 46 percent from 1992 to 1998. As attorney general, will you expand successful gun prosecution initiatives, like Project Exile, and make imposing gun laws a priority?

ASHCROFT: I would hope that we would be able to more effectively enforce the laws relating to guns.

From the data that I have seen out of Project Exile and other efforts around the country, we have a far greater and more dramatic impact on violent crime by enforcing gun laws than we do in many other efforts that we make to try and improve the personal security and safety of our citizens.

As a matter of fact, in the last couple of years, I've sought additional appropriations when a member of the Senate to fund a similar program in St. Louis — a program which I think is entitled Project Cease Fire. But it's similarly a focus on saying to those who use guns in the commission of a crime, "You can't do that with impunity, and we will make sure that if you use a gun in the commission of a crime, you will regret it."

In Project Exile, the remediation and the rates of crime was very, very dramatic, and it seems to be a promising program that ought to be explored further. I think enforcement of gun laws holds great promise.

And incidentally, I might add that, as attorney general of the United States, obviously I would be interested in advancing the agenda of the president when possible. And he has stated clearly his attention to have more vigorous and energetic prosecution of gun crime.

THURMOND: As a senator, you were very dedicated to the war on drugs. For example, you successfully led the fight to pass major drug legislation to combat the methamphetamine epidemic. As attorney general, would you continue that commitment to fight illegal drugs?

ASHCROFT: Well, Senator, I think the illegal drugs are a mark and a stain on America, but they are a mark against the young people of this country that makes very difficult their success in the future, and I would hope I would have an opportunity to have an energetic enforcement of the drug laws in this country in a way which would curtail drug use. And I would hope we would be able to lead in such a way as to make it possible for young people to look to national officials and to the, kind of, atmosphere we create as one that rejects drug use.

In the methamphetamine laws, which I had the privilege of working closely with members of this committee on, including Senator Biden and Senator Feinstein, we did a couple of things that were important. We took methamphetamine, which people had not taken seriously, and we put very serious penalties into the law.

I think it was important that we put penalties in the law that were on a parity with the penalties for cocaine, because too often people thought that methamphetamine was not an important or challenging thing, and we needed to have an opportunity to make sure that we signalled our disapproval and the danger that these dangerous drugs really present to our young people.

THURMOND: A great deal of attention is focused on the rights of criminals, but we do not hear as much about the rights of victims. Nevertheless, you have been a leader for victims' rights. Should crime victims be a top concern for the Justice Department?

ASHCROFT: Indeed, they should. I had the privilege of being involved in signing victims' rights legislation in the state of Missouri, and I was eager to find a way to have a national program for victims' rights legislation, because too often technical problems relating to minor conflicts between the federal system and the state system made impossible an effective use of the state's victims' rights legislation to protect the interests of individuals who have been victims of crime.

THURMOND: You have been endorsed by numerous law enforcement organizations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Chiefs of Police and the National Sheriffs' Association. Is it important for the attorney general to work closely with state and local law enforcement, including rural law enforcement?

ASHCROFT: Well, it certainly is important.

One of the things about methamphetamine that struck me in the state of Missouri is that it tended to be a rural drug. It wasn't as focused in our city centers, where drugs like cocaine were prevalent, but in the out-state portions of Missouri, the methamphetamine production in a variety of labs — and I'm sorry to say that Missouri is second only to California in terms of meth labs that were taken down.

It exploded on our state. There were two meth labs taken down in 1992; there were about 1,000 taken down last year in the state. And many more — I talked to one county sheriff who was in what we call a collar county around St. Louis where he said that his sheriff's department would take down 200 meth labs in that one county during the year.

And at the same time I met with that sheriff, there were five or six small city police chiefs from that same county, and they said they would break down another 100. So there you have one county with 300 meth labs in a single year. It's a very serious problem. And it is in rural America. And our ability to provide assistance through HIDTAs and other programs in the Justice Department can help curtail this very serious threat.

LEAHY: I'll put in the record a number of statements of others so that we can have a chance — one, so that the witness can have a chance, if he wishes to add to his answers, to do so in the transcript; but so those who asked a question would have also a chance to see that.

We will recess now. We will reconvene in the Senate Caucus Room in the Russell Building, third floor of the Russell Building, tomorrow morning at 10:00.

SESSIONS: Mr. Chairman, we have leave to file a written statement? May I have leave to file a written statement?

LEAHY: Oh, of course. Of course. All senators would.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
Bush Administration
Related Products:
Express your opinion about this to top leaders, Congress and the media -- send an Urgent PriorityGram -- it`s as easy and powerful --Click Here now