01.30.01

Statement of Senator Maria Cantwell on the Nomination of Senator John Ashcroft to be Attorney General of the United States

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On December 23, when President-elect Bush stated his intention to nominate John Ashcroft to be Attorney General, I had grave doubts that he had made the right choice.

I was determined, however, not to prejudge Senator Ashcroft and thus I have listened to these hearings with great care and awaited the full testimony of the nominee before arriving at my judgment. As I stated previously, I have sought to provide the President the traditional deference in appointing his cabinet while abiding by my constitutional duty to advise and consent. With this in mind, I have supported every other cabinet nominee this President has proposed.

But I cannot support Senator Ashcroft. After a thorough examination of his record, my initial doubts have grown into a conviction that he is in fact the wrong choice for Attorney General and a wrong choice for our country.

Our symbol of Justice is a woman, blindfolded, holding a balance in her hand. As a Senator, I believe that Senator Ashcroft will have a hard time having a blind eye or a balanced hand for the fair and impartial administration of justice.

Sen. Ashcroft's record of making inflammatory statements regarding reproductive rights and desegregation; his apparent disregard for protecting the individual liberties of all Americans; his affiliation B and unwillingness to disavow -- extremist organizations and publications; and his penchant for supporting legislation to roll back our nation's environmental laws I find disturbing.

But I believe that the Senator's ideology and voting record are not enough to impede the President from having the Cabinet of his choice. Rather, as I stated at the commencement of these hearings, I am interested in knowing if the nominee will faithfully and zealously enforce the law of the land.

As Attorney General of Missouri, Senator Ashcroft used the power of his office to fight court orders on desegregation of the Saint Louis school system. Although the court of appeals and the Supreme Court repeatedly denied his attempts to thwart the implementation of the desegregation plan, he continued to seek new challenges to the order.

The federal district court criticized his legal actions, stating that "the court can draw only one conclusion -- the state has, as a matter of deliberate policy, decided to defy the authority of the court." And in a later court order, the court characterized Attorney General Ashcroft's appeals as "feckless."

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. said in 1963 that "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy."

I find it disturbing that more than 20 years after Dr. King spoke these words that Attorney General Ashcroft risked a contempt of court threat from a judge to continue his stubborn opposition to desegregation.

In Senator Ashcroft's record on nominations, that so many of my colleagues have spoken about, I have found more evidence of an individual applying arbitrary justice that appears to have served his own political and ideological objectives, rather than the best interests of the nation.

Many are aware of the highly publicized case of Judge Ronnie White in which Sen. Ashcroft's distortion of the judge's record brought the nomination to a halt. But there are other disturbing actions which my colleagues have also talked about and there were others about whom my colleagues have already spoken: Bill Lann Lee, James Hormel, Margaret McKeown, and numerous women and minority nominees -- simply too many -- all of whom it seems fit an Ashcroft standard -- a standard which seem to be opposed to nominees for ideological reasons.

Many in our nation today, knowing of this record, question whether Senator Ashcroft's intense advocacy and often arbitrary judgment is compatible with the role of Attorney General. This position requires someone who understands that Justice has a blind eye and a balanced hand, someone who, like Elliot Richardson, is capable of real impartiality and courage in the name of law, no matter whose rights are at stake or whose actions have violated that law.

This brings me to the issue of reproductive rights. Senator Ashcroft has taken positions on this issue -- an issue of critical importance to women in this country -- that are clearly outside the mainstream of public opinion. His record of pushing legislation limiting the right to a legal abortion and contraception, as Missouri Attorney General, Governor, and Senator, have caused great anxiety for many in my state.

As Missouri Attorney General, he took up numerous cases in his crusade to challenge the Roe v. Wade decision.

As my colleague Sen. Leahy stated previously, "there is no appointed position within the Federal Government that can affect more lives in more ways than the attorney generalÉwe all look to the attorney general to ensure even-handed law enforcement; equal justice for all; (and) protection of our basic constitutional rights."

The bottom line is that: I am not convinced that Senator Ashcroft will enforce the letter and spirit of the law in the area of women's reproductive rights.

I look forward to building a strong and cooperative relationship with the President and the new administration. However, I must appeal to the better judgment of this President to reconsider this nomination. I have grave doubts about Senator Ashcroft's efforts and ability to carry out the full scope of his duties as attorney general with a blind eye and a balanced hand.

Therefore, I cannot support his nomination as Attorney General of the United States.