RECORD OF SENATOR ASHCROFT'S STEWARDSHIP AS ATTORNEY GENERAL
           GENERAL, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE THE SENATOR TOOK ACTIONS
           THAT DO NOT CALL TO QUESTION TODAY HIS IDEOLOGY BUT CALL TO
           QUESTION HIS JUDGMENT IN PURSUIT OF THAT IDEOLOGY. YES, SENATOR
           ASHCROFT TESTIFIED THAT HE WOULD ENFORCE THE LAWS WITH WHICH HE
           DISAGREES. BUT TAKE, FOR INSTANCE, THE VOLUNTARY SCHOOL
           DESEGREGATION CASE IN ST. LOUIS, OR THE NOMINATION OF JUDGE

           RONNIE WHITE, OR THE NOMINATION OF JAMES HORMEL AS AMBASSADOR
           FOR LUXEMBOURG, OR THE NOMINATION OF DAVID SATCHER FOR SURGEON
           GENERAL. EACH OF THOSE IN MY ESTIMATION REVEAL A RESPONSE BY
           SENATOR ASHCROFT THAT EXHIBITED AN EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT THAT I
           BELIEVE CALLS TO QUESTION HIS ABILITY TO PROVIDE FOR THE KIND
           OF MORAL FORCE AND LEGAL FORCE NECESSARY IN THE JOB OF ATTORNEY

           GENERAL. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT YOU CAN SIMPLY DISMISS EACH AND
           EVERY ONE OF THE INSTIJT STIVENGS THAT LETED TO-- --INSTIJTS
           THAT LED TO THE EXERCISE OF JUDGMENT IN THOSE CASES. LET ME BE
           VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE, IF I MAY, MR.
           PRESIDENT. WHEN HE WAS MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL, AS WE KNOW --
           OTHERS HAVE TALKED ABOUT IT -- SENATOR ASHCROFT OPPOSED THE

           COURT-APPOINTED VOLUNTARY DESEGREGATION PLAN FOR ST. LOUIS.
           NOW, WE KNOW THAT SCHOOL DESEGREGATION IS A CONTROVERSIAL
           PUBLIC POLICY, AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE WHO APPROPRIATELY AT
           VARIOUS TIMES IN THE COUNTRY IN ONE PLACE OR THE OTHER FOUND
           FAULT WITH CERTAIN APPROACHES TO VARIOUS VOLUNTARY
           DESEGREGATION PLANS. THAT IS NOT THE MEASURE OF MY CONCERN. BUT
           WHAT IS DEEPLY TROUBLING TO ME IS THAT, DESPITE THE PROBLEMS

           WITH THE EXISTING LAW AND DESPITE THE PROBLEMS THAT WERE FOUND
           WITH THE PROPOSED VOLUNTARY REMEDY, SENATOR ASHCROFT, IN A
           POSITION OF LEADERSHIP ON THIS ISSUE, DUTIBOUND TO BRING PEOPLE
           TOGETHER AND TO TRY TO LEAD THE COMMUNITY THROUGH THIS
           DIFFICULT TIME, FAILED TO COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE THAT
           WOULD HAVE AMELIORATED THE DIVISIONS OF THE COMMUNITY AND, MOST
           IMPORTANTLY, WOULD HAVE ADDRESSED THE SEGREGATED CONDITIONS.
           WHEN CHILDREN ARE TRAPPED IN SCHOOLS THAT DON'T WORK, MR.

           PRESIDENT, WHEN CITIES ARE DIVIDED BY RACIAL LINES, THERE IS A
           CHOICE THAT CAN BE MADE. YOU CAN BE A VOICE FOR RECONCILIATION
           OR YOU CAN BE A VOICE FOR DIVISION. AND WHEN SENATOR ASHCROFT
           CHOSE TO POLITICIZE THE ISSUE BEYOND ALL PROPORTION, WRIS WHAT
           MANY PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY HAVE TESTIFIED, HE CHOSE THE
           LATTER, AND THAT IS A MATTER OF JUDGMENT NOT BELIEF. PERHAPS
           THE MOST DISTURBING ELEMENT IN HIS RECORD WAS THE TREATMENT OF
           JUDGE RONNIE WHITE. NOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT THOSE FACTS TO

           THE FLOOR AND I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM
           AGAIN, BUT, MR. PRESIDENT, I REMEMBER THAT DEBATE WELL. I
           REMEMBER THE LANGUAGE WHICH CHARACTERIZED THIS GOOD PERSON
           PERSON. HE WAS CALLED PROCRIMINAL. IT WAS SAID THAT HE HAD A
           TREMENDOUS BENT TOWARDS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. A JUDGE HAD A

           TREMENDOUS BENT TOWARDS CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. AND IT WAS CLAIMED
           THAT HE WAS THE COURT'S MOST LIBERAL JUDGE ON THE DEATH PENALTY
           AND DIDN'T CARE "HOW CLEAR THE EVIDENCE OF GUILT." BUT THAT'S
           NOT TRUE, MR. PRESIDENT. THOSE WORDS ARE SIMPLY NOT TRUE TRUE.
           OF COURSE HE CARED ABOUT GUILT. AND IF YOU READ HIS SDIRX HIS
           DECISION SAID NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE WASN'T GUILTY OR
           WHETHER OR NOT HE SHOULDN'T, IF GUILTY, BE SUBJECTED TO THE

           DEATH PENALTY. HE DIDN'T THINK THIS MAN HAD A FAIR TRIAL, AND I
           DON'T BELIEVE THAT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES
           SHOOS INTERPRET SOME JUDGE'S OPPOSITION TO THE LACK OF FAIR
           TRIAL TO BECOME ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE A RATIONAL FOR A
           PARTY-LINE VOTE FULLY DIVIDED BY VIRTUE OF HIS LEADERSHIP ON
           HIS PROTESTATIONS AND CHARACTERIZATIONS OF THIS JUDGE. AS IS
           NOW WELL-KNOWN, JUDGE WHITE HAD A STRONG RECORD OF SUPPORTING

           CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND OVEN VOTED WITH MR. ASHCROFT'S OWN
           APPOINTEES ON THE MISSOURI SUPREME COURT. INDEED, HE HAD A
           TOUGHER RECORD ON THE DEATH PENALTY THAN SOME OF SENATOR
           ASHCROFT'S OWN NOMINEES. JUDGE WHITE VOTED FOR THE DEATH
           PENALTY IN 41 OF 59 CASES THAT CAME BEFORE HIM AND HE VOTED
           WITH THE MAJORITY 53 TIMES, INCLUDING CASES IN WHICH FAVORED
           REVERSAL. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT IS NOT AN ISSUE OF IDEOLOGY.

           THAT IS NOT A MATTER OF BELIEF ON WHICH I CHOOSE TO CAST MY
           VOTE. IT IS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT JUDGE WHITE WANES
           APPROPRIATELY CHARACTERIZED ON THE FLOOR OF THE SENATE, AND I
           BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS A REFLECTION OF A JUDGMENT ABOUT ANOTHER
           HUMAN BEING, ABOUT OUR POLITICS, ABOUT LIFE IN OUR COUNTRY. I
           DO NOT BELIEVE, AS SOME HAVE CLAIRPBLGSD AT ALL -- AND I HOPE
           WE WOULD NEVER INSINUATE -- THAT SENATOR ASHCROFT IS RACIST. I

           DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT
           HE IS, AND I THINK THAINS APPROPRIATE TO THIS GAIFMT BUT I DO
           THINK THAT THERE WAS AN UNFAIR DISTORTION OF JUDGE WHITE'S
           RECORD BRANDING HIM AS PRO-CRIMINAL AND THAT THE HANDING OF
           THAT NOMINATION IN ITSELF RAISES SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT
           JUDGMENT, ABOUT FAIRMINDED IN AND ABOUT FAIR PLA. JUDGE WHITE,
           QUITE ELOQUENTLY, MADE THAT VERY POINT DURING HIS TESTIMONY
           BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WHEN HE SAID, QUOTE, "I BELIEVE

           THAT THE QUESTION FOR THE SENATE IS WHETHER THESE
           MISREPRESENTATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH FAIRPLAY AND JUSTICE,
           THAT YOU ALL WOULD REQUIRE OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL." THAT
           IS NOT A MATTER OF IDEOLOGY. THALS A MATTER OF JUDGMENT. I AM
           ALSO TROUBLED, MR. PRESIDENT, THAT WHEN DAVID SATCHER'S
           NOMINATION FOR SURGEON GENERAL CAME BEFORE THE SENATE WITH
           GREAT BIPARTISAN SUPPORT, AGAIN SENATOR ASHCROFT FILIBUSTERED

           AND DESCRIBED HIM AS A, QUOTE, "PROMOTER OF PARTIAL-BIRTH
           ABORTION." MR. PRESIDENT, DAVID SATCHER HAD LED THE CENTER ON
           DISEASE CONTROL IN ATLANTA WITH DISTINCTION. HE'D BEEN A LEADER
           AT A MEDICAL COLLEGE IN TENNESSEE. HE HAD THE FULL BACKING OF
           SENATOR FRIST AND SENATOR THOMPSON, BOTH OF WHOM ARE PEOPLE OF
           ENORMOUS INTEGRITY. THEY TOLD US THAT DAVID SATCHER WOULD NOT
           PROMOTE ABORTION. THEY TOLD US THAT YOU COULDN'T QUESTION HIS
           CHARACTER OR HIS INTEGRITY, BUT JOHN ASHCROFT SAID THAT THIS

           INDIVIDUAL WOULD, QUOTE, "PROMOTE A HEINOUS ACT, PARTIAL-BIRTH
           ABORTION." WHY?
           SIMPLY BECAUSE DAVID SATCHER BELIEVED THAT A BAN ON THE
           PROCEDURE OUGHT TO INCLUDE -- WHICH HE WAS IN FAVOR 6. HE WAS
           IN FAVOR OF A BAN. BUT HE BELIEVED THAT THAT BAN OUGHT TO
           INCLUDE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE LIFE AND HEALTH OF A MOTHER. THE
           KIND OF DISTORTION THAT WE SAW FOR DAVID SATCHER RAISES A
           QUESTION NOT ABOUT IDEOLOGY BUT ABOUT JUDGMENT AND FAIRNESS AND

           FAIR PLAY. I'M ALSO TROUBLED BY SENATOR ASHCROFT'S JUDGMENT
           ABOUT THE SO-CALLED ALLEGED TOTALITY OF THE RECORD WITH RESPECT
           TO A GOOD MAN CALLED JAMES HORMEL. MR. PRESIDENT, I REGRET TO
           SAY IT, BUT I CAN ONLY INTERPRET THE TOTALITY OF THE RECORD AS
           A CODE WORD FOR "OPPOSITION TO JAMES HORMEL" BECAUSE HE WAS
           GAIFMT Y. DO I DRAW THAT CONCLUSION?

           BECAUSE IN THE COURSE OF DEBATE AND IN THE COURSE OF COMMENTS
           PUBLICLY, SENATOR ASHCROFT AT THE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
           NEVER DOUBTED THAT MR. HORMEL WAS A COMPETENT BUSINESS MERN.
           NEVER DOUBTED OR QUESTIONED HIS RECORD OF FILL L.A.N. THROW PEE
           OR COMPLIMENT TO HIS COMMUNITY, NEVER DOUBTED OR QUESTIONED HIS
           EFFECTIVENESS AS A DEAN OR THE JOB HE HAD DONE PRIOR TO
           ENTERING BUSINESS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. SENATOR

           ASHCROFT WAS ONE OF ONLY TWO PEOPLE ON THE FOREIGN RELATIONS
           COMITE TO VOTE AGAINST HIM. AND DURING THE CONFIRMATION
           HEARINGS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, HE AGAIN REITERATED IT WAS THE
           TOTALITY OF THE RECORD. BUT ONCE AGAIN, WITHOUT ANY
           EXPLANATION. MR. PRESIDENT, AS WE KNOW, MR. HORMEL WAS FINALLY
           APPOINTED BY RECESS. BUT IN MY JUDGMENT, MR. HORMEL WAS OPPOSED
           FOR A STATUS OFFENSE. SENATOR ASHCROFT DID RAISE QUESTIONS

           ABOUT THE PROPENSITY OR LIKELIHOOD MR. HORMEL MIGHT HAVE TO,
           QUOTE, "PROMOTE" -- "ABOUT PROMOTING A CERTAIN KIND OF
           LIFESTYLE." AND I THINK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US UNDERSTANDS THAT
           THAT IS A CODE WORD IN AND OF ITSELF FOR HIS SEXUALITY. I WOULD
           ADD THAT THE PEOPLE OF ELECTION UMBERG, FAR FROM RAISING THIS
           QUESTION THEMSELVES, DID NOT SHARE THAT CONCERN AND SO IT WAS
           THAT SENATOR ASHCROFT SOUGHT TO DENY LUXEMBOURG AN ACCORDING TO
           THAT THEY WERE ASKING TO HAVE APPOINTED. MR. PRESIDENT, I DON'T

           BELIEVE THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE AN ATTORNEY
           GENERAL WHO LEAVES EVEN DOUBTS DOUBTS, EVEN DOUBTS ABOUT
           WHETHER OR NOT BEING GAY IS A STATUS OFFENSE. I'M ALSO TROUBLED
           BY THE LACK OF SENSITIVITY THAT WAS DISPLAYED EVEN IN THE
           AFTERMATH OF THE INTERVIEW THAT TOOK PLACE WITH SOUTHERN
           PARTISAN MAGAZINE IN 1998. ANOTHER COLLEAGUE HAS GONE INTO THAT
           AT GREAT LENGTH ON THE FLOOR AND I WILL NOT EXTEND $SPEND A LOT
           OF TIME ON IT, MR. PRESIDENT. IT IS ONE THING TO HAVE DONG THE

           INTERVIEW AND I SUPPOSE TO HAVE SUGGESTED LATER ON THAT YOU
           DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE MAGAZINE DID OR WHO THEY SPOKE TO OR WHAT
           AUDIENCE THEY TALKED ABOUT. IT IS ANOTHER, I THINK, WHEN YOU
           ARE A NOMINEE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL NOT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT
           THERE ARE INDEED QUESTIONS THAT WOULD ARISE IN AN INTERVIEW OF
           THIS NATURE WITH THAT KIND OF MAGAZINE. THIS IS A MAGAZINE, MR.
           PRESIDENT, THAT PRAISES JOHN WILKES BOOTH FOR ASSASSINATING

           ABRAHAM LINCOLN. IT HAS EDITORIALS AGAINST INTERRACIAL DATING.
           AND IT SEEMS TO ME WHEN YOU READ THE INTERVIEW ITSELF AND YOU
           RECOGNIZE THE FOLKS THAT THE SENATOR WAS TRYING TO TALK TO AND
           WHAT HE WAS APPEALING TO TO, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE
           SERIOUS QUESTIONS AGAIN ABOUT JUDGMENT, ABOUT THE JUDGMENT OF
           WHAT THE MESSAGE IS TO A LARGE PART OF AMERICA THAT SEES THAT
           MAGAZINE AND THOSE WHO ASPIRE -- WHO ADHERE TO ITS PHILOSOPHY

           AS THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER GOTTEN OVER THE FACT THAT SLAVERY WAS
           ENDED IN THE SOUTH. I WOULD HAVE LIKED -- I THINK MANY OF US
           WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE AT LEAST HEARD PERHAPS A DISAVOWEL OF
           THOSE VIEWS OR AN EXPRESSION THAT IN FACT RECOGNITION THAT SOME
           OF THE VIEWS ARE NIVENG APPROPRIATE AND APPEAL TO SOME PEOPLE'S
           WORST INSTINCTS RATHER THAN BEST INSTINCTS. THOUGH, I THINK,

           ARE THE KIND OF EXPRESSIONS THAT OUGHT TO COME FROM SOMEBODY
           WHO IS GOING TO TRY TO REPRESENT THE HEALING OF THE DIVISIONS
           THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEARS. I MIGHT
           ARXD MR. PRESIDENT, THEY'RE JUST NOT THE HEALINGS FROM THE
           DIFFICULTIES OF THE ELECTION. THEY ARE THE HEALINGS FROM THE
           PROBLEMS OF RACIAL PROFILING. THEY ARE THE HEALINGS FROM THE
           PROBLEMS OF DISCRIMINATION IN HOUSING. THE HEALINGS FROM THE
           PROBLEMS IN SO MANY PEOPLE OF COLOR WHO WIND UP IN PRISON

           INSTUDY OF IN CLEFMGT THE DIVISIONS THAT OCCUR BECAUSE SO MANY
           IN THIS COUNTRY STILL FEEL THAT THE LAW IS STACKED AGAINST THEM
           RATHER THAN WORKING FOR THEM. AND THE CHOICES THAT AN ATTORNEY
           GENERAL WILL MAKE ARE OBVIOUSLY CRITICAL TO OUR ABILITY TO MOVE
           FORWARD AND NOT BACKWARD WITH RESPECT TO THOSE KINDS OF
           DIVISIONS. SO, MR. PRESIDENT, IT IS THESE PARTICULAR ACTS OF
           PERSONAL JUDGMENT THAT I BELIEVE RAISE THE MOST SERIOUS

           QUESTIONS ABOUT THE APPROPRIATENESS OF SENATOR ASHCROFT,
           ASSUMING THIS REMARKABLY SENSITIVE POSITION. AS A FORMER
           PROSECUTOR, I SEE SENATOR REID IS ON THE FLOOR AND HE SHARES
           THAT PRIOR OCCUPATION, I THINK FOR MANY OF US, THERE'S AN ACUTE
           SENSITIVITY TO THE JUDGMENTS THAT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL MAKES ON
           A DAILY BASIS. WHAT CASES WILL BE TAKEN ON?
           THE WHAT PARTICULAR TASK FORCES MIGHT BE CREATED IN ORDER TO
           TRY TO ADDRESS PEOPLE'S SENSE OF GRIEVANCE IN THE COUNTRY?

           CERTAINLY, OBVIOUSLY, THE POWER OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, THE
           POWER OF CHOOSING WHO WILL SIT ON WHAT COURTS, THE POWER OF
           DECIDING WHAT YOU WILL APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE
           UNITED STATES, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHEN ALL
{END: 2001/01/31 TIME: 18-30 , Wed.  107TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}