Date: 2001-01-31
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I rise to express my concern today about the nomination of Senator John Ashcroft and want to express my appreciation to the leadership of the gentlewoman from Ohio to give us this opportunity to simply express our concerns. Let me say at the outset that. on paper. Mr. Ashcroft is the perfect candidate. He was a Member of the Senate. a governor. and an attorney general of the State of Missouri. I am told that he is amiable among his friends and has a good sense of humor. However. in determining the suitability of a nominee to serve as the highest law enforcement official of the country. we must take great care and look below the surface. We must look to his record and find the truth of his character from the actions he has taken at different times. I have examined that record and believe that Mr. Ashcroft is an unfortunate. choice to head the Department of Justice. I would not make such a statement lightly. As the New York Times said in an editorial which appeared on January 23: "Any reasonable reading of the extensive Judiciary Committee testimonies shows that Mr. Ashcrofts zeal has overruled prudence in cases that bear directly on issues relevant to the Department of Justice. Mr. Ashcrofts record on civil rights marks him as out of the mainstream of American ideals." Poll after poll has shown that the vast majority of Americans favor equal rights for all people. Most Americans take pride in the strength and courage this country has shown to come from the ugly days of segregation and Jim Crow to the America we now know. And while much remains to be done. few. are willing to return to the bitter days of yesteryear. Yet it would seem that Mr. Ashcroft does not share these views because Mr. Ashcroft has opposed every major civil rights bill during his tenure in the Senate. Not only has his opposition to civil rights involved attempting to thwart the passage of laws. but it has involved attempting to block confirmation of individuals that he thinks might carry out these laws. During the Clinton administration. he led the fight against the confirmation of Bill Lann Lee as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Despite Mr. Lees unquestioned and impeccable credentials. Mr. Ashcroft objected to Mr. Lee because Mr. Lee had opposed proposition 209. a California measure that eliminated affirmative action in California. Mr. Lee was never confirmed. Even more troubling for someone who seeks to be Attorney General. Mr. Ashcrofts opposition to civil rights apparently includes blocking lawfully issued orders of Federal courts. When Mr. Ashcroft was the attorney general for Missouri. he was the States top lawyer in the key stages of a court battle to end separate and unequal education. Twentyfive years after Brown v.. the Board of Education. St. Louis schools still needed to come iito compliance with the Supreme Courts ruling in this landmark case. John Ashcroft blocked the parties in the suit from developing a plan for voluntary desegregation and actively obstructed implementation of court orders. He filed appeal after appeal. His efforts caused unusually harsh criticism from the courts. After repeated delays and failure to comply by Mr. Ashcroft. the court threatened in March of 1981 to hold the State in contempt. In its order. the court order explicitly criticized the States continual delay and failure to comply with court orders. The court stated that "the court can only draw one conclusion. the State has as a matter of deliberate policy decided to defy the authority of the court." And again in 1981. Ashcroft even opposed a plan by the Reagan administration for voluntary desegregation. Even more troubling. in 1984. he based his gubernatorial primary campaign on his zealous opposition to the voluntary school desegregation plans for St. Louis schools. This is a troubling intersection of the use of the law for political gain. Yet all of this could be forgiven if Mr. Ashcroft had demonstrated an ability to work with those who differed with him. In the role of Attorney General of the United States. one must meet with many people with divergent interests and complicated agendas. Yet despite all of his experience in politics and government. I am afraid that Mr. Ashcroft has not built a reputation as one who seeks compromise and understanding. For instance. in 1993 when seeking to become chair of the Republican National Committee. members of his own party criticized Mr. Ashcrofts unwillingness to work cooperatively with those whose views differed from his. According to a quote which appeared in the St. Louis Post Dispatch on January 10. 1993. a fellow Republican from Missouri. State Senator Robert Johnson. said that Ashcroft "wont take criticism. And if you disagree with him. he knocks you out of the loop like you dont exist." And this is the most troubling thing of all. because. as Mr. William Raspberry wrote in the Washington Post. Mr. Ashcroft "seems certain to be a highly divisive force in an administration committed to healing across lines of party. ideology and race." While I hope that the Senate takes heed to these concerns. I understand that Mr. Ashcroft may succeed in his quest to become Attorney General. Let me take this opportunity to say now that if Mr. Ashcroft is confirmed. he will have a strong obligation to staff the Justice Department with people of demonstrated fairness and integrity and to show that they can administer the law evenhandedly. I hope that if he is confirmed. he will remember that it was his record of divisiveness that has marred his confirmation process. I hope he decides to follow President Bushs promise to be a uniter. not a divider.