LEES ASSURANCES THAT HE WOULD ENFORCE THE LAW, THE
           REPUBLICAN-CONTROLLED SENATE WOULD NOT ALLOW A VOTE UP OR DOWN
           ON THE FLOOR ON HIS NOMINATION. I BELIEVE THAT JOHN ASHCROFT'S
           ASSURANCES THAT HE WOULD ENFORCE THE LAW IS NOT THE END OF OUR
           INQUIRY. FAR MORE THAN THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CIVIL
           RIGHTS, A JOB BILL LANN LEE WAS NOMINATED FOR, THE ATTORNEY
           GENERAL HAS VAST AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE LAW AND TO

           PARTICIPATE IN THE LAWS' DEVELOPMENT. UNLIKE ONE OF HIS
           ASSISTANTS, HE HAS TO BE HELD TO A HIRE STANDARD BECAUSE HE
           SETS THE POLICY. THE ASSISTANT CARRIES OUT THE POLICY OF THE
           ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE A.G. DOES NOT MERELY DECIDE WHETHER
           COMMON CRIMES SUCH AS BANK ROBBERY TO BE PROSECUTED. OF COURSE
           THEY SHOULD. DOES ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT WHOEVER IS ATTORNEY
           GENERAL AND FACED WITH SOMETHING AS HORRENDOUS, FOR EXAMPLE, AS
           THE OKLAHOMA BOMB SOMETHING NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE?

           DOES ANYBODY BELIEVE THAT AN ATTORNEY GENERAL FACED WITH A CASE
           OF A SKYJACKING OR AN ASSIST NATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS
           GOING TO SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO PROSECUTE?
           OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO PROSECUTE. BUT, THERE ARE A LOT OF
           OTHER THINGS THAT ARE NOT IN THE NEWS EVERY DAY. THEIR THE
           ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS TO DECIDE HOW THE LAW WILL BE ENFORCED AND
           THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS MORE DISCRETION IN THIS REGARD THAN
           ANYBODY IN GOVERNMENT. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ADVISES THE

           PRESIDENT OF JUDICIAL NOMINEES, DECIDES WHAT POSITIONS TO TAKES
           BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT AND THE LOWER FEDERAL COURTS, DECIDES
           WHICH OF OUR THOUSANDS OF STATUTES REQUIRE DEFENDEDING OR
           INTERPRETING. HE ALLOCATES ENFORCEMENT RESOURCES. THE ATTORNEY
           GENERAL DECIDES WHO WE'RE GOING TO SUE AND, EVEN MORE
           IMPORTANTLY PERHAPS, DECIDES WHICH CASES WE'RE GOING TO SEFMT
           MAKES HIRING AND FIRING DECISIONS, SETS A TONE FOR THE NATION'S
           LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. SO I THINK IT IS REASONABLE TO GO

           BACK AND LOOK AT HOW HE HAS ACTED AS ATTORNEY GENERAL BEFORE
           AND I GO BACK TO MISSOURI. BECAUSE AGAIN HE WAS SWORN TO
           ENFORCE THE LAWS AND ALL THE LAWS. SO HOW DID HE FOCUS THE
           RESOURCES OF HIS OFFICE?
           HERE'S HOW HE DID IT. HE FOCUSED THE RESOURCES OF HIS OFFICE ON
           BANNING ABORTIONS ABORTIONS, BUT ALSO ON BLOCKING NURSES FROM
           DISEXPENSING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS AND I.U.D'S. HE SUED POLITICAL

           DISSENTERS AND HE FOUGHT VOLUNTARY DESEGREGATION. I'M SURE THAT
           IN MURDER CASES OR ANYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT, HE WOULD ENFORCE
           THE LAW. BUT IT'S HOW HE CHOSE TO DECIDE WHICH OF THOSE
           DISCRETIONARY AREAS HE ACTED. HE'S USED LANGUAGE HERE,
           DESCRIBING THE JUDICIARY, THAT IS DISTURBING TO MANY. HE'S
           SHOWN STPHO WHAT SENATOR BIDEN CALLS BAD JUDGMENT IN A

           ASSOCIATEDED WITH BOB JONES UNIVERSITY IN "SOUTHERN PARTISAN"
           MAGAZINE. BUT HE'S UNFAIRLY BESMIRCHED THE REPRESENTTATIONS OF
           NOMINEES INCLUDING RONNIE WHITE AND AMBASSADOR HORMEL. I'M
           PARTICULARLY CONCERNED THAT HE'S NOT FULLY ACCEPTED WHAT HE NOW
           CALLS THE SUBTLE LAW REGARDING A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE. HIS
           CONFIRMATION EVOLUTION SEEMS IMPOSSIBLE GIVEN THE SUPPORT FOR
           THE HUMAN LIFE ACT WHICH HE NOW ADMITS WAS UNSTURXL EVEN THOUGH

           HE SUPPORTED IT AND HIS DENIAL OF THE LEGITIMACY ROLE IN THE
           ROLE OF CASE SIS. IN WHICH HE CALLED THE SUPREME COURT RUFFIANS
           IN ROBES. I SGRIDE WITH THE SUPREME COURT COURT'S CASES BUT I'D
           NEVER CALL THEM THAT. I THINK HIS ASSURANCES RECENTLY UNDERCUT
           THE ASSURANCES OF PRESIDENT BUSH AND VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY.
           JUST ONE DAY AFTER SENATOR ASHCROFT ASSURED THE -- THAT HE
           WOULD NOT SEEK AN OPPORTUNITY TO OVERTURN THEM, THE PRESIDENT

           SAID THAT HE WOULD NOT RULE OUT AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT
           ARGUED FOR THAT RESULT. THE VICE PRESIDENT CERTAINLY REFUSED TO
           COMMIT HIMSELF TO THIS ISSUE OVER THE WEEKEND. THE PROMISE TO
           ENFORCE THE LAW IS EEL MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR THE JOB OF
           ATTORNEY GENERAL. IT IS NOT A SUFFICIENT ONE. IT IS NOT ENOUGH
           JUST TO SAY, YOU WILL ENFORCE THE LAW. SENATOR ASHCROFT'S
           RECORD DOES MATTER IN MAKING A JUDGMENT ABOUT WHETHER HE IS THE

           RIGHT PERSON FOR THIS JOB. ABOUT THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS, MY
           REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES HAVE SAID WE SHOULD GIVE SENATOR ASHCROFT
           CRET CREDIT FOR HIS PUBLIC SERVICE AND I CERTAINLY AGREE WITH
           THAT. JUST AS I GIVE HIM STRONG CREDIT AND ADMIRE HIM FOR HIS
           DEVOTION TO HIS FAMILY AND RELIGION. TAIRPBLGTS OUR REPUBLICAN
           FRIENDS KEPT INSISTING THAT HIS RECORD AND THE POSITIONS HE HAS
           TAKEN IN PUBLIC SERVICE DO NOT MATTER BECAUSE HE'S TAIL TAKE
           NOW A DIFFERENT POSITION AS U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL. PRESIDENT

           BUSH ASKED US TO LOOK INTO SENATOR ASHCROFT'S HEART. WE'RE
           BEING URGED NOT TO LOOK INTO HIS RECORD. I DON'T DOUBT THE
           GOODNESS OF HIS HAFERMENT I DO DOUBT THE CONGRESS SIS TENSIVE
           HIS RECORD RECORD. SOME OF MY REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES WENT SO FAR
           AS TO ARGUE THAT WE SHOULD NOT HEAR FROM ANY WITNESSES OTHER
           THAN THE NOMINEE. WE MAY NOT REVIEW ALL THE NOMINEE'S REQUIRED
           FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES. THAT'S NOT THE WAY WE GO ABOUT OUR

           RESPONSIBILITY OF ADVISE AND CONSENT. RERX THE CONSTITUTION
           DOES SAY "ADVISE AND CONSENT." NOT "ADVICE AND RUBBER STAMP."
           THAT IS WHY AS CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE DURING THE
           WEEKS I HELD THAT POST, I REFUSEED TO RAILROAD THIS NOMINATION
           THROUGH. INSTEAD, I HAD FULL, FAIR, AND INFORMATIVE HEARINGS TO
           REVIEW THE NOMINEE'S PRORD AND POSITIONS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE
           ARE ENTITLED TO AN ATTORNEY GENERAL WHO'S MORE THAN JUST AN
           AMIABLE FRIEND TO MANY OF US HERE IN THE SENATE AND PROMISES

           MORE THAN JUST A BEAR MINIMUM THAT HE WILL ENFORCE THE LOU.
           THEY ARE SFWILD SOMEONE WHO WILL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION AS
           INTERPRETED BY THE SUPREME COURT, RESPECT THE COURTS TO ABIDE
           BY DECISIONS HE DISAGREES WITH&FORCE THE LAW FOR EVERYBODY,
           REGARDLESS OF POLITICS. A WAY TO DETERMINE THAT IS TO LOOK AT
           THE NOMINEE'S RECORD, NOT TO ENGAGE IN MET AT THAT PHYSICAL

           SPECULATION ABOUT HIS HEART. OOMS -- MR. PRESIDENT, I WILL SAY
           MORE, BUT I SEE SEVERAL SENATORS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE ON
           THE FLOOR. I'M GOING TO WITHHOLD FOR JUST A MOMENT. BUT JUST
           THINK FOR A MOMENT. WE ARE A NATION OF 280 MILLION AMERICANS.
           WHAT A FANTASTIC NATION WE ARE ARE. RANGE ACROSS THE POLITICAL

           SPECTRUM, ACROSS THE ECONOMIC SPECTRUM, ALL RACES AND
           RELIGIONS. I THINK OF MY OWN CASE. MY MOTHER'S FAMILY CAME TO
           THIS COUNTRY NOT SPEAKING A WORD OF ENGLISH. MY GRANDPARENTS --
           GRANDFATHERS WERE STONE CUTTERS IN VERMONT. I LOOK AT THE
           DIVERSITY OF ETHNIC BACKGROUNDS IN OUR FAMILY. MY WIFE GROWING
           UP SPEAKING A LANGUAGE OTHER THAN ENGLISH. GREAT DIVERSITY OF

           THIS COUNTRY COUNTRY. AND OVER IT ALL, EVERYBODY KNOWING
           WHETHER THEY ARE AN IMMIGRANT STONE CUTTER OR WHETHER THEY ARE
           A WEALTHY MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE. THE LAWS WILL
           ALWAYS TREAT THEM THE SAME. EVERYBODY KNOWING, WHETHER THEY'RE
           BLACK OR WHITE, THEY CAN RELY ON THE LAW TO TREAT THEM THE
           SAME. ON TOP OF ALL THAT IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED
           STATES WHO REPRESENTS ALL OF US US. THE PRESIDENT HAS HIS OWN
           WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS NOT THE LAWYER FOR
           THE PRESIDENT. HE HAS A WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL. IN FACT, TO SHOTE

           ACCEPT RAIRX THE WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL DOES NOT REQUIRE SENATE
           CONFIRMATION. HE OR SHE IS APPOINTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND
           THAT'S A CHOICE OF THE PRESIDENT ALONE. BUT THE ATTORNEY
           GENERAL REQUIRES CONNIRATION BECAUSE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
           REPRESENTS ALL OF US. WE HOLD THIS COUNTRY TOGETHER BECAUSE WE
           ASSUME THE LAW TREATS US ALL THE SAME. WHEN I LOOK AT THE
           PUBLIC OPINION POLLS IN THIS COUNTRY AND SEE A NATION DEEPLY

           DIVIDED OVER THIS CHOICE FOR ATTORNEY GENERAL, THAT IS NOT THE
           VIEW -- THAT IS NOT THE VIEW OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. AND I HOPE
           IF JOHN ASHCROFT IS CONFIRMED THAT HE'LL TAKE STEPS TO HEAL
           THOSE DIVISIONS. HE'LL TAKE STEPS TO SAY THAT HE'LL BE THE
           ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR EVERYBODY, NOT JUST FOR ONE GROUP THAT
           TOLD THE PRESIDENT HE HAD TO APPOINT HIM HIM. WITH THAT REGARD,
           MR. PRESIDENT PRESIDENT, I WOULD HOPE ALL SENATORS WOULD THINK

           ABOUT THAT THAT. AND I'LL GO BACK TO THIS LATER ON, BUT, MR.
           PRESIDENT, I SEE OTHER SENATORS, AND I WILL YIELD THE FLOOR. A

           SENATOR: MR. PRESIDENT?
           MR. PRESIDENT?
           
           

           THE PRESIDING OFFICER: THE SENATOR FROM ARIZONA.
           

           MR. KYL: THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS
           THAT BOTH CHAIRMAN HATCH AND SENATOR LEAHY HAVE JUST MADE WITH
           RESPECT TO THIS NOMINATION. WE BEGAN WHEN I REFERRED TO SENATOR
           LEAHY AS MR. CHAIRMAN, AND NOW ARE NEARING CONCLUSION DURING
           THE TIME THAT SENATOR HATCH WILL BE REFERRED TO AS MR.
           CHAIRMAN. AND I AGREE THAT IT IS TIME TO BRING THE CONFIRMATION
           PROCEEDINGS FOR SENATOR ASHCROFT TO A CLOSE. I HOPE THAT MY
           COLLEAGUES WILL CONSIDER THE LONG-RANGE IMPLICATIONS OF THEIR

           VOTES WITH RESPECT TO SENATOR ASHCROFT. I HAVE, I THINK, NEVER
           GREETED VOTING FOR A NOMINEE FOR OFFICE, BUT I HAVE REGRETTED
           SOME OF THE VOTES THAT I'VE CAST AGAINST NOMINEES, AND I HOPE
           MY COLLEAGUES JUDGE HOW THEIR VOTES WILL BE CONSIDERED A YEAR
           FROM NOW, FOUR YEARS FROM NOW, PERHAPS 20S YEARS FROM NOW, IN
           THINKING ABOUT HOW THEY WILL CAPTAIN THEIR VOTES. MOST OF THE
           POINTS THAT SENATOR LEAHY MADE HAVE BEEN MADE BFED AND HAVE
           BEEN FAIRLY THOROUGHLY REHASHED DURING THE COMMITTEE PROCESS

           AND IN OTHER FORUMS. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO ONLY RESPOND, I
           THINK, TO THREE POINTS THAT SENATOR LEAHY JUST MADE. FIRST, AND
           HE MADE THIS COMMENT IN THE JUDICIARY MEETING YESTERDAY AS
           WELL, SENATOR LEAHY SAID THAT IT IS NOT LIBERAL OR LEFT-WING
           GROUPS THAT HAVE INFLUENCED THIS NOMINATION BUT, RATHER, GROUPS
           ON THE FAR RIGHT. AND IT IS POSSIBLE, OF COURSE, FOR ANYBODY TO
           BRAG ABOUT WHAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE. PRESIDENT BUSH
           IS FULLY CAPABLE OF DECIDING WHO HE IS GOING TO NOMINATE FOR

           ATTORNEY GENERAL. I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO RECOMMENDED JOHN
           ASHCROFT TO HIM. SO I DON'T THINK WE CAN ASCRIBE JOHN
           ASHCROFT'S NOMINATION TO THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE WHO ARE
           VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE BRAG ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY STOPPED
           SOMEBODY ELSE AND RECOMMENDED HIS NOMINATION. HE WAS
           RECOMMENDED BY OTHER PEOPLE AS WELL, INCLUDING MYSELF. BUT, IN
           ANY EVENT, I THINK IT IS RATHER ODD TO SUGGEST THAT LIBERAL
           GROUPS HAVE NOT BEEN ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THIS DEBATE.
           IMMEDIATELY AFTER IT BEGAN, I RECEIVED A COPY OF A SPECIAL
           REPORT FROM THE PEOPLE FOR THE AMERICAN WAY, CLEARLY A LIBERAL

           THE LEFT-LEANING GROUP. THE CASE AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF
           JOHN ASHCROFT AS ATTORNEY GENERAL. PAGE AFTER PAGE AFTER PAGE
           PROLIFERATE, IN EFFECT, OPPOSITION RESEARCH OPPOSED TO THE
           NOMINATION. I ALSO NOTE JUST ONE STORY FROM "THE WASHINGTON
           TIMES" OF JANUARY 17 OF THIS YEAR, AND I'D LIKE DEVOTE THISATE
           AT LENGTH BECAUSE I THINK IT MAKES THE POINT RATHER CLEARLY
           CLEARLY. "SENATE DEMOCRATS ARE UNDER ENORMOUS PRESSURE FROM
           LIBERAL INTEREST GROUPS TO DEFEAT MR. ASHCROFT WHOM THEY ACCUSE

           OF INSENSITIVITY TO MINORITIES IN HARBORING A STEALTH AGENDA TO
           UNDERMINE ABORTION RIGHTS. YESTERDAY MFUME SAID HIS
           ORGANIZATION WILL -- AND THAT IS DIRECT QUOTATION -- "FUND
           MAJOR INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS." IN STATES
           WHOSE SENATORS VOTE IN FAVOR OF MR. ASHCROFT. AND THIS IS
           CONTINUING THE QUO FACING FROM MR. MFUME. "SENATORS WHO VIETNAM
           FOR MR. ASHCROFT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RUN AWAY FROM THIS. FOR
           DEMOCRATIC SENATORS?
           PARTICULAR, THIS VOTE COMES AS CLOSE TO A LITMUS TEST AS ONE

           CAN GET ON THE ISSUE OF CIVIL RIGHTS AND EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER
           LAW FROM THE PARTY'S MOST LOYAL CONSTITUENCY." MR. PRESIDENT, I
           DON'T THINK IT REALLY MATTERS MUCH. IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT BOTH
           LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE INTEREST GROUPS HAVE WEIGHED IN ON
           THIS NOMINATION. IT'S TOTALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO DO SO,
           AND, THEREFORE, I'M NOT QUITE CLEAR OF WHY ONE WOULD MAKE THE
           POINT THAT IT'S ONLY CONSERVATIVE GROUPS THAT HAVE WEIGHED IN.
           CLEARLY LIBERAL GROUPS HAVE WEIGHED IN AS WELL. THAT IS THEIR
           RIGHT. I IN FACT ADMIRE THOSE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS WHO WILL VOTE

           TO CONFIRM SENATOR ASHCROFT BECAUSE I APPRECIATE THE INTENSE
           PRESSURE THAT THEY'RE UNDER. WE ALL HAVE PRESSURES, BUS IT
           TAKES COURAGE SOMETIMES TO GO AGAINST WHAT THEY MAY PERCEIVE AS
           GOING AGAINST THE GRAIN IN THEIR OWN STATE. THE SECOND POINT
           MADE WAS THAT THIS WAS A DIVISIVE NOMINEE. NOW, IT'S A LITTLE
           HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND HOW A NOMINATION CAN BE DIVISIVE
           UNTIL SOMEBODY OBJECTS. PRESIDENT BUSH LAID OUT HIS POTENTIAL
           CABINET AND IMMEDIATELY ALL ATTENTION FOCUSED ON THREE OF THOSE

           NOMINEES. THEY WERE SAID TO BE DWIS SIFMT WELL, THEY ARE DWIS--
           --THEY WERE SAID TO BE DWIS SIFER. THEY WERE DIVISIVE BECAUSE
           SOMEBODY OBJECTED TO THEM. THIRD, AND THIS RELATES TO IT, THIS
           BUSINESS BEN FORCING THE LAW HAS REALLY PUT SENATOR ASHCROFT
           INTO A DIFFICULT POSITION. IT IS A CATCH-22 FOR HIFMT HE CAN'T
           WIN LITERALLY. IF HE SAYS HE WILL ENFORCE THE
{END: 2001/01/31 TIME: 11-30 , Wed.  107TH SENATE, FIRST SESSION}