Leahy Statement on Ashcroft Unresponsiveness
Comment Of Sen. Patrick Leahy,
Ranking Member, Senate Judiciary Committee,
On Sen. Ashcroft's Responses To The Committee's Written Questions
Fri., Jan. 26, 2001
"The answers are surprisingly unresponsive and often are inconsistent with
the hearing record and with Sen. Ashcroft's own record. They are 'answers' in
the sense that there is text after the question marks, but they are not
answers to the point of being responsive.
"The committee always requires nominees to reply to its written questions as
part of the confirmation process. In this case written questions are
especially important because senators had fewer rounds of questions than
usual and because the nominee was not called back at the end of the hearings,
as we often do. Of course any nominee can choose how to respond to the
committee's questions. This nominee and his advisers have decided to
essentially ignore the committee's request for answers on several significant
subjects important to many senators. That is Sen. Ashcroft's choice. The
refusal to provide substantive answers is another factor that senators will
have to take into account in deciding how they will vote. I will say that if
President Clinton or a Clinton nominee had provided these answers, some
Republicans would be calling for impeachment or a subpoena."
Sen. Leahy released the following examples of unresponsive or inconsistent
answers in Sen. Ashcroft's responses:
UNRESPONSIVE ANSWERS
In his written responses, Sen. Ashcroft refused to:
-- take a position on whether Southern Partisan is racist;
-- explain what he meant when he said he opposed James Hormel based on the
"totality of the circumstances";
-- express regret about calling Jim Brady the "leading enemy" of responsible
gun owners;
-- explain his basis for saying the Supreme Court had engaged in "religious
oppression";
-- explain why employees should not be free from discrimination based on
sexual orientation;
-- express his view as to whether states should be able to restrict the
teaching of evolution;
-- explain what he meant when he told Southern Partisan he had "stopped
judges."
THE HORMEL NOMINATION
Sen. Ashcroft was asked to specify the factors that led to his opposition to
James Hormel, but he continues to refuse to do so, citing again "the totality
of Mr. Hormel's record" as the basis for his opposition. Moreover, while Sen.
Ashcroft denied in his oral testimony that he opposed Mr. Hormel because he
was gay (1/17/01 Tr., at p. 92), he curiously notes in his written responses
that Luxembourg, to which Mr. Hormel was to be posted, was the "the most
Roman Catholic country in all of Europe."
NOMINATION HOLDS
Sen. Ashcroft refused to acknowledge in his written responses even a single
hold on any presidential nominee, even though, for instance, he held a news
conference on October 13, 1997, in which he publicly admitted to holding up
the judicial confirmation of Margaret Morrow. See L.A. Daily Journal, October
15, 1997.
JUDGE RONNIE WHITE
Sen. Ashcroft's answer that reproductive rights played no part in his
opposition to Judge White's nomination is flatly contradicted by the
questions he asked and the statement he put in the Judiciary Committee markup
record on May 21, 1998, in which he referred to Judge White's "manipulation
of legislative procedures while he was a member of the Missouri General
Assembly."
REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
Sen. Ashcroft acknowledges in his written response to a question by Sen.
Leahy that a Missouri bill known as Senate Bill 339, which criminalized
non-therapeutic abortions, might not be constitutional, but he distances
himself from this legislation by stating that he had "no specific
recollection" and that "it appears from press reports that representatives
from my office may have expressed interest in seeing the bill passed out of
committee." He also states:
"[w]hile I was governor, it was my policy to refrain from opining on whether
I would sign a bill until after a bill actually passed the legislature...".
Finally, he states that "this bill did not prevent abortions attributable to
rape, incest or a "bona fide, diagnosed health problem." (emphasis in
original).
FACTS:
Sen. Ashcroft's failure of recollection about this legislation is difficult
to credit. His State of the State Address on January 9, 1990, stated, "within
the next week, I will announce my support for concepts that would enhance our
capacity to protect unborn children." Shortly thereafter, on January 19,
1990, he issued a statement saying, "Today I am proposing that Missouri ban
abortions for birth control, sex selection, and racial discrimination.
Missourians reject multiple, birth control abortions... I am grateful for
these proposals and I would welcome an opportunity to sign their protections
for unborn children and mothers into law as an alternative to the
continuation of abortions." These specific reasons for banning abortion were
part of Missouri Senate bill 339. Sen. Ashcroft failed to provide the
Committee with these speeches as requested, but they are documented in
contemporaneous press reports. See St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 10, 1990,
and January 20, 1990.
Sen. Ashcroft is wrong when he says only his "representatives ... expressed
interest." In addition to the speeches cited above in which he expressly
supported the terms of this legislation, when the bill was being debated in
the Missouri Senate, Gov. Ashcroft reportedly was personally involved in
pressuring a swing vote. "Gov. John Ashcroft had telephoned Singleton to urge
his support for a bill barring virtually all abortions" [referring to Senate
Bill 339]. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 28, 1991.
Sen. Ashcroft is wrong when he says he refrained from opining about signing
the bill. "The governor's proposal would join two bills that would outlaw
most abortions in Missouri. Ashcroft said he would sign those measures into
law 'as an alternative to the continuation of abortions.'" St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, January 20, 1990.
Sen. Ashcroft is wrong when he says the bill did "not prevent abortions
attributable to rape, incest". The bill itself provides NO such exceptions
and, in fact, the bill failed because in the view of the "swing vote" "the
proposal went too far... it failed to assure the continued legality of
abortions in cases involving rape or incest." St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March
28, 1991.
