Thank you Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin by touching on two general principles to guide our consideration of Cabinet nominations.

The first principle is that the Constitution imposes the duty on the President to faithfully execute the laws and he is expected to propose new laws. To carry out these duties, the President needs advisors and policy-makers in the Cabinet to advance the President's program. Over the history of such nominations, the Senate, with rare exceptions, has given the President broad leeway in choosing subordinates.

The second principle that I think should govern nominations is what might be called the political golden rule. We, as Democrats, should, if at all possible, do unto the Republicans as we would have the Republicans do unto us. A Democratic president ought to be able to appoint to the Cabinet principled people of strong progressive or even liberal ideology. And, therefore, a Republican president ought to be able to appoint people of strong conservative ideology.

Now, whether doing so is good politics or, more importantly, is wise in light of a promise to unify the nation after a very close election is a very important issue for a sustained national debate. But that is not at the core of our responsibility in this body to advise and consent on Cabinet nominations.

Now, as to the case of former Senator John Ashcroft for Attorney General, I think John Ashcroft is highly qualified from the points of view of competence and experience. During the past six years, I have had the opportunity to get to know John Ashcroft as a colleague. I have had little contact with him outside the Senate floor or the Committee rooms. In one of these very few encounters, I and Senator Paul Wellstone were walking outside the Capitol and John Ashcroft offered a short ride to our homes. Let me tell you, on the record, it should give at least some comfort that he was not nominated for Secretary of Transportation – it was a kind gesture but a wild, somewhat hair-raising ride.

Advise and consent, however, is not about who is a "nice guy" or collegiality, and, in all seriousness, this is a very painful nomination for many Americans in light of John Ashcroft's views and votes on many issues, ranging from the right to choose, to gay/lesbian rights, to affirmative action, to the environment, to others. I am also alarmed by some of these views.

Yet, my own direct experience with John Ashcroft has been positive in the sense that he has been much more open to my strong feelings on issues, such as the outrageous practice of racial profiling than almost all of his Republican colleagues on this Committee and in the Senate as a whole. He and his staff not only permitted but assisted in a significant and powerful hearing on racial profiling in the Constitution Subcommittee which John Ashcroft and I led at the time. Nonetheless, although that experience is certainly relevant to my consideration I want the individuals and groups that have raised concerns about the nomination to know this: I understand and agree that that experience should be one and only one of many other more important factors to be considered in judging the fitness of this nominee as Attorney General.

In fact, as I consider the merits of this nomination, I can't help but take this moment to express my concerns about the attitude and approach the former Republican majority in the Senate has taken since 1996 in considering executive appointments and judicial appointments. The previous majority and yes, sometimes led by John Ashcroft, seemed never to accept the legitimacy of President Clinton's 1996 victory. Instead, in my view, they unfairly blocked very legitimate, qualified appointees such as Bill Lann Lee, Ronnie White, and James Hormel. I think this is wrong and even Chief Justice Rehnquist blamed the understaffing of the federal judiciary on this questionable approach. This is the very partisanship with which the American people have grown so frustrated and dismayed.

So, it is not easy for me to tell those who fought so hard for Clinton and then for Gore that we should follow the golden rule, do the right thing, and not use a similar approach during the next four years. That's my inclination, but I ultimately wonder at what point we have to draw the line given the previous majority's refusal to accord the Democrats the very deference that they, the Republicans, now seek.

Let me also commend the individuals and groups, with whom I agree on virtually all of the key issues, for prompting a significant national discussion on this nomination. Despite criticism, you are right to intensely scrutinize this nomination. Regardless of the outcome, this process will reap long-term benefits as these legitimate and heartfelt concerns are heard by all Senators and the American people.

But let me also repeat my conviction, as this hearing begins, that voting records and conservative ideology are not a sufficient basis to reject a Cabinet nominee, even for Attorney General. I say this as a progressive Democrat from Wisconsin who hopes that the William O. Douglasses or Ramsey Clarks of the future will be appointed to executive positions and cabinets and not be rejected on that basis alone. In other words, being in the middle of the road is not a requirement for a cabinet position.

####