Friday, January 26, 2001

NOMINATIONS

Q. List each presidential nominee on which you placed a "hold" while a United States Senator. In responding, please specify how you are defining "hold."

In an effort to fulfill my responsibilities as a United States Senator, I welcomed inquiries by the Majority Leader and Majority Whip regarding the scheduling and floor consideration of items on the legislative and executive calendars. Though I may have expressly requested prior notification during my six years so as to participate in debate or be present for a vote, I do not recall (other than as detailed herein) which, if any, nominations were involved, or the circumstances surrounding any such requests.

Q. Did you or your staff ever indicate to Senator Lott, Senator Nickles or any other members of the Republican leadership or their staffs a concern in connection with scheduling Senate consideration of a presidential nomination? For each such occasion please provide a complete discussion of what you did and why you did it.

I asked the Senate leadership to consult with me as each presidential nomination came up. Out of the approximately 1,686 Clinton presidential nominees, I voted to confirm all but 15. Though I may have expressly requested prior notification during my six years so as to participate in debate or be present for a vote, I do not recall (other than as detailed herein) which, if any, nominations were involved, or the circumstances surrounding any such requests.

Q. Did you ever indicate that you wished to be consulted by the Majority Leader in connection with scheduling Senate consideration of a presidential nomination? For each such nomination please provide a complete discussion of what you did and why you did it.

I asked the Senate leadership to consult with me as each presidential nomination came up. Out of the approximately 1,686 Clinton presidential nominees, I voted to confirm all but 15. Though I may have expressly requested prior notification during my six years so as to participate in debate or be present for a vote, I do not recall (other than as detailed herein) which, if any, nominations were involved, or the circumstances surrounding any such requests.

Q. Did you ever indicate to anyone that you would prefer the vote on a presidential nomination not take place or not take place at a certain time? For each such nomination please provide a complete discussion of what you did and why you did it.

I regularly requested that votes on nominations and legislation take place to accommodate my schedule during my six years in the Senate, so as to participate in debate or be present for a vote. I do not recall which, if any, nominations were involved, or the circumstances surrounding any such requests.

Q. Please describe any other steps that you took to delay or block consideration of a presidential nomination, and the standard you used when you decided to take such steps.

I asked the Senate leadership to consult with me as each presidential nomination came up. Out of the approximately 1,686 Clinton presidential nominees, I voted to confirm all but 15. Though I may have expressly requested prior notification during my six years so as to participate in debate or be present for a vote, I do not recall (other than as detailed herein) which, if any, nominations were involved, or the circumstances surrounding any such requests.

Q. You testified on Wednesday that you opposed the nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg because "based on the totality of his record," you "didn't think he would effectively represent the United States." Please specify the factors that led you to oppose that nomination and vote against it in Committee.

Based on the totality of Mr. Hormel's record of public positions and advocacy, I did not believe he would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe.

Q. Is it true that you refused repeated requests to meet with Ambassador Hormel to discuss your concerns about his nomination, and if so, why?

I opposed the confirmation of Ambassador Hormel in committee. That was the extent of the action I took concerning his nomination. Given the pressing demands of fulfilling the responsibilities of a U.S. Senator, there were other interests in the Senate upon which I was primarily focused.

Q. According to news reports, you placed a hold on Ambassador Hormel's nomination, and threatened to filibuster it if it ever came to the floor for a vote. What standard did you use for deciding whether to attempt to delay or block a vote on that nomination?

I cannot assess the accuracy of published news reports I have not read. However, it is not correct that I placed a hold on Ambassador Hormel's nomination. Although I voted against his nomination in Committee, I do not recall threatening to filibuster the nomination. Since I do not recall attempting to delay or block a vote on Hormel's nomination, the question of the use of a standard is inapplicable.

Q. You initially opposed the nomination of David Ogden to head the Civil Division at Justice and voted against him in Committee. What if any steps did you or your staff take in 1999 and 2000 to delay or block Committee consideration of the Ogden nomination? Why did you oppose the nomination of David Ogden?

I am not aware of any action taken on my behalf to delay consideration of the Ogden nomination. I voted against Mr. Ogden in Committee because of concerns about his candor when asked about his knowledge of the Department's tobacco litigation.

Q. You voted against the nomination of Alice Rivlin to be a Member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Why did you oppose the Rivlin nomination?

I joined 40 of my Republican colleagues in opposing this nomination. Although I do not recall the details of my opposition, I was concerned about her role in formulating the President's controversial budget proposals.

Q. In a 1999 interview for Southern Partisan magazine, you are quoted as saying: "I have been as critical of the courts as any other individual, probably more than any other individual in the Senate. I have stopped judges and I have argued against liberal expansionism and I will continue to do so." When you said to Southern Partisan magazine that you "stopped judges," what nominations and judges were you referring to, and what did you do in each instance to "stop" them?

During my tenure as a U.S. Senator, I took the constitutional obligation to advise and consent on lifetime judicial nominations very seriously. My consistent standard was whether I believed, based on the totality of the record, that a given nominee would enforce the law as written, rather than follow his or her own policy preferences. With Ronnie White and Fredericka Messiah-Jackson, based on their records and on the concerns expressed by law enforcement, I did not believe they would do so. In both instances, I voted against the nomination in question and explained to my colleagues my reasons for doing so.

Q. What did you do to delay Senate consideration of the nomination of Margaret Morrow?

I was concerned about the nomination of Ms. Morrow for a District Court judgeship within the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has had a consistently higher reversal rate before the U.S. Supreme Court than any of her sister circuits. Ms. Morrow's record, I believed, indicated a hostility to voter referenda in California and a willingness to supplant the law with her own personal policy preferences. Accordingly, I voted against her in Committee, and requested an opportunity to speak against the nomination when it came before the full Senate. When the nomination was scheduled for a floor debate, I spoke against the nominee and voted not to give her an appointment for lifetime tenure on the federal bench.

Q. Why did you oppose the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Second Circuit in the Judiciary Committee and in the Senate?

I was concerned about the nomination of Ms. Sotomayor to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, because her record as a District Court judge, I believed, indicated a willingness to stretch the law and to supplant the law with her own personal policy preferences. Accordingly, I voted against the nominee in Committee and on the final Senate vote.

Q. If confirmed as Attorney General will you employ a standard for recommendations to the President that turns on whether you think the caseload of the court justifies an appointment? What will your standard for workload calculations be?

I believe that a court's caseload is an appropriate factor for assessing the need for new judicial appointments, and that the assessment of the sitting judges on the court in question is a useful measure of that caseload. Obviously, Congress has an important role to play in assessing the need for federal judgeships and Senator Grassley has played an important role in that process. Ultimately, however, the appointment of a judicial nominee is the President's responsibility, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Q. Why did you oppose the nomination of Judge Aiken?

I opposed Judge Aiken based on an evaluation of the entirety of her record. I was particularly concerned about a sentencing decision she made as a state trial judge, and her subsequent explanation of that decision. Judge Aiken found a 26-year-old defendant guilty of raping a 5-year-old girl, and sentenced him to 90 days in jail, rather than substantial prison time (which was an available option under Oregon law), so that he would be eligible for psychological counseling. I considered this focus on the perceived best needs of a convicted rapist over adequate punishment for a grave threat to the public to constitute a significant lapse in judgment, at best.

Q. Why did you oppose the nomination of Judge McKeown and what did you do to delay Senate consideration of this nominee?

I opposed Ms. McKeown's appointment to the Ninth Circuit because she had evidenced a hostility to voter initiatives, including efforts to prevent initiatives from even being placed on the ballot. I was particularly concerned in light of the fact that voter initiatives were a substantial issue in the Ninth Circuit at the time and because the Ninth Circuit has had a consistently higher reversal rate before the U.S. Supreme Court than any of her sister circuits.

Q. Why did you vote against Judge Mollway?

Ms. Mollway had become identified with a number of legal positions on various issues, including the validity of prison reform legislation and mandatory minimum sentences. After her confirmation hearing, I was not convinced that she had sufficiently distanced herself from some of these previously expressed positions or that she fully appreciated the role of a federal judge to allow me to support her confirmation for a lifetime tenure as a federal judge.

Q. As Attorney General would you not recommend candidates for the federal bench who disagreed with you about the legitimacy of the substantive due process doctrine?

The Supreme Court's precedents recognize some role for the doctrine of substantive due process. To the extent I play a role in the process for selecting judicial nominees, I would want to recommend judges who follow the law and the precedents of the Supreme Court. However, to the extent that federal courts are to recognize new substantive due process rights, I believe the Supreme Court has indicated a preference that it take the lead in any judicial expansions of this doctrine. I would be reluctant to recommend candidates for lower federal courts who expressed an eagerness to expand the doctrine in the absence of clear guidance from the Supreme Court.

Q. Why did you oppose Judge Paez?

I was concerned by the comment from the ACLU, calling Judge Paez's nomination, "a welcome change after all the pro-law enforcement people we've seen appointed to the state and federal courts." I was also concerned about public comments he made regarding California ballot initiatives while he was sitting as a federal district judge because the constitutionality of the initiative might have come before him. I was particularly concerned in light of the fact that voter initiatives were a substantial issue in the Ninth Circuit at the time and because the Ninth Circuit has had a consistently higher reversal rate before the U.S. Supreme Court than any of her sister circuits.

Q. Why did you oppose Judge Dyk?

Mr. Dyk's nomination was a very difficult one for me, because he had extremely strong credentials. However, he had publicly expressed a view of statutory construction that advocated disregarding clear statutory text in favor of looking for the "basic purpose" of the statute. He was appointed to a court that has a special and exclusive responsibility to interpret certain statutory schemes subject only to Supreme Court review, which is infrequent because the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction precludes the possibility of circuit splits, one of the major factors applied by the Supreme Court in granting certiorari.

Q. You voted against Judge Lynch. Why?

Mr. Lynch had authored articles regarding constitutional interpretation that rejected the doctrine of original intent and cast the role of the federal judge as one who was free to effect political change without voter accountability. Based on these statements and my review of the totality of his record, I did not favor appointing to him to a lifetime tenure on the federal bench.

Q. The Boston Globe reported on January 15, 2001 that in 1995, "Ashcroft killed the looming nomination of Alex Bartlett, an African-American, surprising Abner Mikva, a former judge and then President Clinton's counsel." According to the article, Judge Mikva called you up and asked you why, and you said, "I just don't like him. He did something I don't like." Judge Mikva then asked if there was an ethical problem, and you said, "No. I just don't like him." Please comment on the accuracy of this conversation as reported by the Boston Globe. Did you oppose the "looming nomination" of Alex Bartlett, and if so, why?

Alex Bartlett is not an African-American. Bartlett was never nominated by President Clinton. I made it a practice while a member of the U.S. Senate not to comment on individuals who were never nominated.

Q. Please provide the details of all contacts by you or your staff with law enforcement regarding the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. Describe when it occurred, who initiated the contact, and all that was communicated.

During my tenure in the Senate, my staff kept in regular contact with various constituents in Missouri, including especially law enforcement professionals. Such contact was ongoing, and part of the regular process of trying to represent well the people of Missouri. In the case of Judge White, a great many individuals in law enforcement expressed grave concerns to my office over his nomination, and those concerns were a significant factor in my decision to oppose his confirmation.

Q. In light of the Edmond decision of the United States Supreme Court, do you think it was fair for you to have been and remain critical of Judge White's dissent in Damask?

My understanding is that the Edmond case deals with "suspicionless" or blanket drug checkpoints. It is inapplicable to the facts of Damask, where the police had created a checkpoint designed to stop only those who behaved in a way to justify individualized suspicion.

Q. In your questioning of Judge White at his confirmation hearing you made reference to his actions as a State legislator. Did you accept Judge White's explanation of what happened at the markup you inquired about? Did that matter figure in your decision to oppose Judge White? Did you discuss that matter with any other Senators, and if so, what did you say about it?

I opposed Judge White on the basis of his record of dissents in criminal, and in particular death penalty cases, and because of the level of law enforcement opposition to his nomination. I discussed these factors with other Senators.

Q. Other than the law enforcement letters that you circulated with your Dear Colleague letter to Republican Senators the day of the Senate vote, did any other individual, group or organization contact you or your office and urge you to oppose or support the nomination of Judge Ronnie White? If so, who, when and based on what consideration? Did any such contacts affect your decision to oppose Judge White?

I was contacted by numerous individuals who expressed views on Judge White's nomination. Much of the correspondence from law enforcement organizations and individuals has been submitted for the record. It is my understanding that my office also received calls, e-mails and other correspondence from a variety of my constituents dealing with Judge White's record in criminal cases and his qualifications for the federal bench.

Q. Did any issue having to do with reproductive rights or restrictions on a woman's right to choose figure in your decision to oppose Judge White?

During the time Judge White's nomination was pending, a number of my constituents in Missouri brought his record on this issue to my attention, but it was not a significant factor in my decision to oppose his confirmation. Indeed, I supported 218 out of 230 Clinton judicial nominees, most of whom, I assume, did not share my views on this issue.

Q. Did any political considerations figure into your decision to oppose Judge White?

It occurred to me that it might be politically unpopular to oppose Judge White. Nevertheless, I concluded that in light of the level of law enforcement opposition to his nomination and his record of dissents, I could not support his nomination.

Q. Senator Kyl stated at the hearings what he recalled you said in the Republican caucus meeting on October 5, 1999, before the Senate voted on Judge Ronnie White's nomination. What do you recall communicating at that time to other Senators?

I recall explaining the reasons why I opposed his nomination at that meeting, and handing out some written material supporting my reasoning.

Q. While a Senator what were your positions on the nominations of Bonnie Campbell, James Duffy, Barry Goode, Roger Gregory, Kathleen McCree Lewis, Enrique Moreno, Judge Helene White, Judge James Wynn, Jr. and H. Alston Johnson?

During my six years in the Senate, I voted for more than 1,600 Clinton nominees. I do not recall what position, if any, I took on these specific nominees.

ROLE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL

Q. As Attorney General, how would you choose your law enforcement priorities?

As Attorney General I would set my law enforcement priorities in consultation with the expert staff of the Department. I would also consult with law enforcement and Members of this Committee. Although it is impossible to assess all my priorities at this juncture, I can stress, as I did at the Committee's hearings, that among my very top priorities would be targeting racial profiling and prosecuting gun crimes.

Q. If confirmed, would you recommend and approve of the nomination of federal judiciary candidates who have taken pro-choice positions or indicated their support for Roe v. Wade? Would you recommend or approve the nomination of candidates who were personally opposed to the death penalty, provided that they assured you that they would enforce the law? Would you recommend or approve the nomination of gay men and lesbians who had demonstrated competence and integrity?

As President Bush has made clear, he will have no litmus test for judicial nominations. As Attorney General, I will fully support the President's standard, and will not employ any litmus tests in carrying out any role I might have in those nominations.

Q. As Attorney General, would you make such positions equally open to people of all races, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and marital statuses?

Yes.

Q. Would the applicant's position on the death penalty be considered in connection with decisions on appointments to senior positions within the Department of Justice?

An applicant's position on this issue could be relevant if his record reflected an unwillingness to enforce laws which the applicant personally opposes.

Q. Would whether the applicant had exercised her constitutional right to an abortion or had a strong personal feeling on the issue of abortion be considered during hiring, promotion and appointments at the Department?

A woman's personal health choices are not relevant to employment in the U.S. government, and, as Attorney General, I will not employ a litmus test for hiring, promotion, or appointments at the Department of Justice.

Q: Would you advise the President to review each U.S. Attorney on a case-by-case basis and to implement an orderly transition to new appointees? Do you anticipate that some U.S. Attorneys who are performing effectively would be asked to serve out the balance of their terms in office?

When he nominated me as Attorney General, the President asked me to give all advice to him and to him alone, and that is a commitment I believe I should honor. I am not aware of any final decision by the President regarding the retention of U.S. Attorneys. I do believe that U.S. Attorneys are critical to maintaining firm and uniform law enforcement across the U.S. and that the U.S. Attorneys offices should remain consistent and non-political.

Q. You testified on Wednesday that "to participate in the development of the law is not to violate your oath, as long as you participate in the development of the law in accordance with the opportunities expressed." Would it be fair to say that, if confirmed, you will continue to "participate in the development of the law" in a manner that further restricts the constitutional rights of women recognized in Roe and its progeny?

As Attorney General, my job will be to enforce the law, and, as I explained at the hearing, I accept Roe and Casey as settled law of the land. The Supreme Court has made perfectly clear that there is a constitutional right to abortion.

Q. What did you mean in your 1997 speech "On Judicial Despotism" when you said: "We should enlist the American people in an effort to rein in an out-of-control Court"?

Our Constitution begins with the words "We the People" because it is only through the consent of the people that our government derives its authority. Judges are sworn to uphold the Constitution, and, when they implement their own personal policy preferences instead of applying the law, they are subverting their Constitutional role. It is for this reason that the appointment of judges is given to the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate - so that the appointing and confirming bodies remain democratically accountable to the people.

REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS

Q. You testified that you accepted Roe and Casey as "the settled law of the land." When in your mind did these cases become "settled"? Please be specific.

The cases have become settled through the passage of time and reaffirmation by the Supreme Court. As I observed at the hearing, the Supreme Court's decisions on this have been multiple, recent, and emphatic.

Q. Please specify the legal principles that you believe were "settled" by Roe and Casey.

Roe and Casey make plain that women have a constitutional right to abortion.

Q. Did you consider Roe and Casey to be settled law when, as a Senator, you introduced S.2135, the Human Life Act of 1998?

Yes, that is why I simultaneously supported a proposed constitutional amendment to the same effect. The proposed constitutional amendment would have been unnecessary if Roe and Casey were not settled law.

Q. Is S.2135 unconstitutional under Roe and Casey?

As introduced, S.2135 is not constitutional under Roe and Casey. Nonetheless, I thought that S.2135 had the potential to promote a discussion that could have led to the passage of legislation that would have been constitutional under Roe and Casey. In my view, it is not uncommon for a legislator to introduce legislation that could not pass as initially proposed in order to begin a process that could lead to the passage of legislation.

Q. In 1991, when you were Governor of Missouri, the Missouri Legislature considered a bill known as Senate Bill 339, which would have made it a felony offense to perform a so-called "non-therapeutic" abortions at any time after conception. Did you support Senate Bill 339? Had it passed, would you have signed it into law? Would you now agree that Senate Bill 339 was unconstitutional under existing Supreme Court precedent?

While I have no specific recollection of SB339, press reports at the time indicated that a prominent Democratic state senator, Senator John Scott, introduced SB339 in 1991. These press reports also suggest that the bill died in the Senate committee, and never was considered by the full legislature.

The purpose of this bill was to list under the definition of "non-therapeutic abortions" 18 different reasons prohibiting certain abortions under state law. Such prohibited purposes included: race or sex selection of the unborn child, cosmetic reasons, avoidance of perceived damage to reputation, failure or non-use of birth control, prevention of a child from being adopted. This bill did not prevent abortions attributable to rape, incest or a "bona fide, diagnosed health problem," i.e., reasons considered "therapeutic" and not otherwise prohibited under the bill. This bill was one of several bills presented during the 1991 legislative session.

Although I have no specific recollection of SB 339, it appears from press reports that representatives from my office may have expressed interest in seeing the bill passed out of committee.

While 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 because bills changed dramatically throughout the legislative process. Therefore, I have no opinion on whether I would have signed the bill.

Interestingly, in a newspaper end-of-session review of the 1991 legislature session entitled "Anti-Abortion Proposals Faded Quietly in Session," the following appeared: ". . . But the governor never threw his weight behind any particular bill. Asked Friday night why he thought the legislature resisted attempts to further restrict abortion, Ashcroft responded simply, 'I don't know.'"

Regarding the bill's constitutionality, I have not taken the time to apply constitutional principles or case law of the time to the bill then under consideration. Under the recent Casey and Carhart decisions, its constitutionality might clearly be questioned.

Q. Do you believe that there is such a thing as constitutional right to privacy - not specifying if, for example, such a right includes the right to terminate a pregnancy - but, more broadly, is there a constitutionally protected right to privacy? If so, which provision of the Constitution is the source of that right to privacy?

I believe in the right to privacy. The Supreme Court has held that there is a constitutional right to privacy, that finds its genesis in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. I also believe that the Third Amendment embodies a constitutional right to privacy.

Q. In November 1998, in response to the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian and other attacks on reproductive health care providers, Attorney General Reno established the National Task Force on Violence Against Health Care Providers. Will you commit to the continuation of this Task Force?

Yes.

ANTITRUST

Q. I have written the Justice Department and the Attorneys General of each of the six New England states regarding my concerns about the rapidly increasing concentration in the dairy processing industry. I am most concerned about Suiza Foods, which is headquartered in Texas, which controls almost 70% of the fluid milk processing and distribution in New England. Just last week, a report prepared by Dr. Mary Hendrickson and Dr. William Heffernan of the University of Missouri confirmed my fears. They concluded that dramatic changes have occurred in the past three or four years in the dairy sector as a result of consolidation and globalization and specifically mentioned Suiza Foods.

If you are confirmed as Attorney General will you vigorously look into this matter?

I am concerned about excessive concentration in any industry when that concentration is the result of anticompetitive actions. As you know, the antitrust laws contain specific provisions designed to ensure that farmers can compete effectively. If confirmed, I would look forward to looking into this matter and ensuring that both the antitrust laws and the interests of dairy farmers are vindicated.

Q. Are you satisfied with thrust of the current antitrust laws or do you intend to recommend that the new Administration review these laws with the intent of proposing some significant changes?

The basic structure of the antitrust laws has been in place for decades. Although there may be a need for targeted reform, I do not personally perceive a need for a comprehensive overall of the antitrust laws. Before providing any recommendations concerning any concrete proposal, I would certainly consult with the President, the Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust and Members of this Committee, as appropriate.

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Q. As Attorney General, what measures would you take to reduce the risk of executing innocent people?

The American justice system is predicated upon the principle that the law should protect the innocent, providing equal justice for all. There is no greater injustice than to execute an innocent person. I will work with the President and the Congress to help ensure that no innocent person is executed in America and that capital defendants have access to DNA technology to confirm guilt or innocence.

Q. Given the high rate of error in capital cases, would you as Attorney General advocate any changes in the restrictions on availability of federal habeas corpus relief for death row inmates?

I believe that there is no greater injustice than to execute an innocent person, and I will work with the President and the Congress to help insure a justice system that protects the rights of all capital defendants.

Q. Last year, Congress passed a Sense of Congress resolution regarding post-conviction DNA testing and competent counsel. Specifically, Congress declared that it should condition forensic science-related grants to States on the States' agreement to ensure post-conviction DNA testing in appropriate cases. Congress also declared that it should work with the States to improve the quality of legal representation in capital cases through the establishment of standards. Do you agree with this bipartisan Sense of Congress resolution, and as Attorney General, would you work with me to ensure that post-conviction DNA testing and competent legal representation are available in all States?

I believe that there is no greater injustice than to execute an innocent person. The Sixth Amendment provides constitutional protections for the right to counsel for criminal defendants, a right that is particularly precious in capital cases. I will work with the President and the Congress to help ensure that no innocent person is executed in America and that capital defendants have access to DNA technology to confirm guilt or innocence.

Q. As Attorney General, would you be willing to work with me to pass the Innocence Protection Act or similar legislation? Our bill would establish standards for ensuring that lawyers in state capital cases are experienced and adequately paid. Do you support the establishment of such standards? Would you agree that a person accused of any crime who cannot afford a lawyer should be provided competent counsel, and that the federal government should ensure that States take the necessary steps to do this?

I believe that there is no greater injustice than to execute an innocent person. The Sixth Amendment provides constitutional protections for the right to counsel for criminal defendants, a right that is particularly precious in capital cases. I will work with the President and the Congress to help ensure that no innocent person is executed in America and that capital defendants have access to DNA technology to confirm guilt or innocence.

Q. Would you agree with me that the execution of an innocent person is unconstitutional?

I think it would be wrong and unconscionable, and, in all likelihood, unconstitutional as well, as the Supreme Court has itself suggested in Herrera v. Collins.

Q. As Governor of Missouri, when you reviewed requests for clemency by a death row inmate, what procedures did you have in place to assess the inmate's guilt or innocence?

Each request for clemency was referred to the Missouri Board of Probation and Parole, a full-time five-member board of experts, for a full review. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Board, the Governor's legal counsel reviewed the request and the recommendation with the Governor for decision.

Q. You have written that you support capital punishment because it "saves lives" by deterring murders. Do you have any empirical basis for your belief?

It is my understanding that there are numerous empirical studies outlining the correlation between capital punishment and deterrence. However, my beliefs regarding capital punishment would be irrelevant to how I would perform my job as Attorney General; federal law provides for capital punishment, and as Attorney General it would be my responsibility to enforce that law fairly and conscientiously.

Q. During the campaign, President-elect Bush said: "Any time DNA evidence, in the context of all the evidence, is deemed to be relevant in the guilt or innocence of a person on Death Row, I believe we need to use it." Do you agree that DNA evidence should be available to death row inmates any time that it is deemed to be relevant to the issue of guilt or innocence? Would you agree that DNA evidence should also be available to other inmates, such as inmates serving life sentences?

I believe DNA evidence has great promise for making our criminal justice system fairer and more accurate, and would be happy to work with the President and the Congress to expand its availability to prosecutors and criminal defendants, especially in capital cases.

CONSTITUTION

Q. Given the number of constitutional amendments you have supported, what assurances can you give us that all your energies will be concentrated on upholding the Constitution rather than implementing your views of how it might be improved?

I joined my colleagues in a number of proposed constitutional amendments. However, those efforts reflect a fundamental respect for the Constitution and for the mechanism that that document establishes for altering the text. Indeed, it is precisely because I do not believe that courts should alter the Constitution that, in the role of legislator, I joined those efforts to formally amend it. As Attorney General, my job would be to enforce the law, not to amend it.

Q. In reaffirming Miranda, the Supreme Court found that a statute that Congress had passed in 1968 to overrule Miranda - 18 U.S.C. 3501 - was unconstitutional. Will you abide by the Court's decision and decline any reliance on 18 U.S.C. 3501? Would you support repeal of 18 U.S.C.?

I will fully enforce the law and abide by the Court's decision in Dickerson v. United States. Though I suspect the question contained a typographical error, as Attorney General I would firmly oppose the repeal of the entirety of Title 18, which comprises the federal criminal code. Whether or not the Congress chooses to formally repeal Title 18, section 3501, as Attorney General, I will enforce the law as it stands post-Dickerson.

SENTENCING

Q: Under what circumstances do you support using drug treatment as an alternative to prison sentences?

I support the President's proposals for a comprehensive approach to illegal drugs, including expanded treatment, increased use of drug courts, and maintenance of drug-free prisons.

Q: Do you believe there is any inconsistency between Congress's creation of the Sentencing Commission and Congress's continued willingness to impose mandatory minimums which take away the Sentencing Commission's discretion? How much discretion do you believe the Sentencing Commission should be given to set criminal penalties for offenses?

The Sentencing Commission is a creature of Congress's creation, and its authority is subject to subsequent congressional enactments. It is not inconsistent for the Congress to enact mandatory minimum sentences while relying on the Commission to set sentencing ranges above such minimums.

ELECTION 2000/VOTING RIGHTS

Q. You are familiar with the Supreme Court's December 9 stay and its December 12 per curiam decision in the recent case of Bush v. Gore - you made reference to this case in defending your actions as Governor when you vetoed the voter registration and education legislation in Missouri. The Supreme Court acknowledged that "the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities." Where does the "logic" of the Court's equal protection holding go in your view - that is, if it was a violation of equal protection to evaluate ballots within Florida as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court in accordance with the standards set by the Florida legislature and under the supervision of a Florida Circuit Court Judge, does that suggest that the constitutional right to equal protection might require national standards for voting and the counting of votes?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will fully and vigorously enforce the federal voting rights laws, because voting is fundamental to other rights in America. In so doing, I will examine the Supreme Court's case law concerning voting rights, to ensure faithfulness to binding law. And, I will enforce whatever new voting rights laws the Congress sees fit to pass in light of Bush v. Gore.

Q. Do you consider that decision of the United States Supreme Court to be an example of thoughtful and prudent judicial decisionmaking, judicial activism, or what you have called judicial despotism?

As Attorney General, it would not be my role to adjudicate the thoughtfulness or prudence of Supreme Court decisions. As Attorney General, I will follow the law.

Q. There is a great deal of bad feeling and division in the wake of the presidential election contest. Many feel that African-Americans in large numbers were disenfranchised in Florida, for example. What do you say to this Committee and to the American people about actions you would take as Attorney General to overcome that division and remedy the problems that led to African-American voters' names being improperly purged from eligible voter lists, their registrations not being processed, the precincts in which they voted being inadequately staffed and having outmoded machinery and the other sources of outrage and concern in the aftermath of the election?

Voting is a fundamental civil right. If fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will work to aggressively and vigilantly enforce federal voting rights laws. It will be a top priority of a Bush Department of Justice, part of what I would hope would be its legacy.

Q. The Justice Department is charged with administering Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. One of the most important questions facing the Justice Department is whether it should use adjusted or unadjusted census data in administering the preclearance provisions of Section 5 and urge courts to do the same under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The U.S. Supreme Court has never questioned the constitutionality of statistical sampling for purposes of administering the Voting Rights Act. Do you believe that the Justice Department should endorse the use of sampled data?

I have not had the opportunity to examine this legal question in depth, but any answer I might give would depend solely on a fair reading of the relevant law and Supreme Court cases. Of course, Congress has the ultimate authority in determining the proper way for federal statutes to be administered.

ENVIRONMENT

Q. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental laws contain citizen suit provisions which allow citizens to bring enforcement actions, claims for injunctive relief and civil penalties, against violators when the federal and state government have failed to do so. The Justice Department has been supportive of citizen suits in the past. Do you support the citizen suit provisions in these laws as a mechanism for ensuring compliance with our environmental laws and do you intend to support them as Attorney General?

Questions concerning the validity of laws should be answered only in the context of a specific case or controversy raising the issue. While it would be imprudent to make a legal determination on the question now, absent a full and thorough review of the relevant law, my obligation as Attorney General will be to defend the constitutionality of duly enacted federal law, whenever a good faith and conscientious basis exists for doing so.

Q. Would you agree that the federal government has the right and the obligation to pursue enforcement of environmental laws to recover the economic benefit that a company has achieved by violating environmental laws, punish a violator for delayed compliance with federal environmental statutes and in order to deter future violations?

Yes.

Q. Would you agree that enforcement of our federal environmental laws, and recovery of the economic benefit obtained by polluters for their violations, is critical to ensuring a level playing field between the many industries that comply with the law and those that seek to cut corners and gain economic advantage by failing to comply?

Yes, to the extent the law so requires.

Q. Do you agree that the economic benefit a company reaps via non-compliance with environmental statutes should be the minimum penalty imposed in enforcement actions in order to level the playing field between violators and those businesses that comply with clean air, water and other environmental laws?

Yes, to the extent the law so requires.

Q. In situations where a violator with facilities scattered across the country is causing problems in more than one state, for example, when the steel manufacturer Nucor failed to control the amount of pollution released from its factories in seven states, do you believe the Justice Department should pursue a national enforcement action?

I believe the federal environmental laws should be fully and vigorously enforced. With respect to any particular potential enforcement actions, such as against the steel manufacturer referenced above, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.

Q. EPA's national enforcement policy is designed to give states the first opportunity to enforce under their authorized or approved programs, but in some circumstances, EPA, with the assistance of the Department of Justice, will file a federal enforcement action after the conclusion of a formal state enforcement action for the same violations that arose out of the same nucleus of operative facts when necessary to protect human health and the environment, to appropriately address a major repeat violator, and/or to recover a significant economic benefit. Do you support the practice of "overfiling" under these circumstances, and if not, why not?

I am not familiar with the details of how such enforcement actions are conducted, and will have to wait until I can consult at length with the professional staff in the Department before I can have an informed opinion.

Q. In 1999, EPA and the Justice Department entered into a series of groundbreaking consent decrees with the seven largest manufacturers of diesel engines, requiring the companies to take several steps to reduce pollution, pay substantial air pollution fines, and produce engines which met certain emission standards. Despite your record of aggressively questioning the fundamental regulatory structure set forth in major environmental laws, such as your co-sponsorship of the controversial S. 981, the "Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998," if confirmed, would you enforce the 1999 consent decrees?

I believe the federal environmental laws should be fully and vigorously enforced. With respect to any particular pending matters, such as against the consent decrees referenced above, it would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time.

FEDERALISM AND STATES' RIGHTS

Q. In June 1999, the Supreme Court issued two decisions in Florida Prepaid and College Savings Bank that effectively immunized the States from damages liability for violations of intellectual property rights. Would you support my legislative effort to restore effective federal protection for intellectual property as against the States, in a manner that avoids any conflict with the Constitution as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court?

Although I have not studied this issue closely, any resolution of it must involve a delicate balancing of the needs to protect intellectual property with the constitutional mandate of federalism. I look forward to working with the Committee to assist in ensuring that intellectual property is fully protected in the modern age, in a manner consistent with the U.S. Constitution.

Q. During your tenure as Governor and in the Senate, you advocated that reproductive rights and civil rights issues should be governed at the state level. In fact, you are quoted in a 1999 interview in the Southern Partisan magazine as saying: "I believe the Tenth Amendment, which was the capstone of our Bill of Rights, does appropriately reserve powers to the states, and it is time for Washington, D.C., to rediscover this founding principle. . . ." In the Senate, you have consistently sponsored, cosponsored and voted for "tort reform" legislation that would override state tort law and limit the jurisdiction of state courts to decide questions of state law. How do you reconcile your support for federal preemption of state law and restrictions on state courts when it comes to liability protection for businesses but not when it comes to protecting civil rights or reproductive rights for ordinary Americans?

Federalism is an important constitutional principle which should be fully honored. The Constitution also explicitly provides, however, that Congress can "regulate Commerce . . . among the several States," and many modern tort judgments unquestionably have national economic impact. As Attorney General, I will support the President's proposals for comprehensive civil justice reform, fully respectful of the constitutional dictates of federalism.

Q. You are a strong advocate of the Tenth Amendment as protecting liberty by preserving States' rights against the Federal Government. The Ninth Amendment also protects liberty, by preserving individual rights against the Government. What is your understanding of the Ninth Amendment?

There have been few opinions of the Supreme Court interpreting the Ninth Amendment, but its plain text adverts to the "rights . . . retained by the people." I believe it is incumbent upon the Department of Justice to enforce the law and protect the constitutional rights of all Americans.

FORFEITURE

Q. The Justice Department's "Equitable Sharing" program allows the Attorney General to share federally forfeited property with participating state and local law enforcement agencies, and has proven controversial with State legislatures, which are concerned that state law enforcement uses the program to bypass state laws that require seizures to be used for other purposes, such as education. Would you agree that by allowing state authorities to evade their own state laws, the Equitable Sharing program creates an intolerable intrusion on state sovereignty? Would you work with me to correct this problem, by ensuring that property transferred to a state or local law enforcement agency under the Equitable Sharing program is subject to any requirement of state law that limits the use or disposition of forfeited property?

Although I have not studied this problem closely, I would be happy to work with you to address any problems in the program in a way that respects both the needs of law enforcement and the constitutional demands of state sovereignty.

Q. Under Article IX of the Missouri Constitution, the proceeds of forfeitures are supposed to be distributed to local school boards. Yet even after a 1990 Missouri Supreme Court decision found their actions to be in violation of the state Constitution, Missouri law enforcement agencies would end-run the constitutional requirement by bringing seizures to a federal agency for "adoption." Money returned through the "Equitable Sharing" program would go directly to the Missouri law enforcement agency. As Governor, did you ever indicate that you would "look the other way" should the Missouri police ignore the state Constitution and Supreme Court decision requiring asset forfeiture moneys to go to education? Did you ever take steps to stop this practice, and if so, what steps did you take?

I am unfamiliar with a number of the facts or assertions embedded in the question, but I would not suggest to any law enforcement officer or agency that I would "look the other way" should they act contrary to the Missouri Constitution. I would expect the Missouri State Highway Patrol to act in accordance with any advice provided by the Missouri Attorney General's office pursuant to a state Supreme Court decision on this subject. Missouri local law enforcement agencies are not administratively responsible to state officials or agencies, but they should act in accordance with legal advice provided by a county prosecutor or municipal counsel.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

Q. The Justice Department provides agency-wide guidance on implementing the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). Janet Reno made significant reforms in implementing this Act by calling upon agencies to exercise discretion where possible and to grant requests unless disclosure would cause actual harm and by making FOIA implementation part of every employee's job performance evaluation. Would you (a) consider FOIA enforcement an important part of an Attorney General's responsibilities; (b) ensure that FOIA activities get adequate budget allocation at Justice and encourage adequate funds for enforcement of FOIA at other agencies; (c) support and personally endorse government-wide training in FOIA responsibilities; and (d) advocate sanctions against government employees who deliberately withhold records from FOIA processing?

Appropriate public access to governmental records is an important check on arbitrary government action. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will fully and faithfully enforce the Freedom of Information Act and ensure that the Department of Justice does the same.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Q: As Attorney General, would sexual orientation be a factor in your employment decisions?

No.

Q: As a Senator, you voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, a bill that would have prohibited employment discrimination against gays or lesbians and that failed to pass by a single vote. Do you believe that the federal government should regulate relations between employers and employees to prevent discrimination on any grounds, and if so, can you explain why you believe that discrimination based on sexual orientation should not be one of those grounds?

The federal government plainly has an important role in preventing discrimination, and it is the Congress's prerogative to determine the scope of those protections. As Attorney General, I will fully and faithfully enforce all civil rights laws passed by Congress and signed by the President.

GUN SAFETY

Q: You have referred to Jim Brady, the press secretary for Ronald Reagan who was nearly killed in John Hinckley's assassination attempt, as "the leading enemy" and "the number one enemy" of gun owners. Do you regret using such intemperate language to describe a person with whom you have policy differences?

I have deep respect for Jim Brady both as a public servant and for the incredible trauma that he has endured as a result of his faithful service to the Nation. I have, however, disagreed with some of the policy prescriptions that Mr. Brady has advocated. However relevant my policy views may have been to my role as a legislator, as Attorney General, I will fully and faithfully enforce the federal gun laws.

Q. Do you believe that existing gun laws are not strictly enforced and, if confirmed, how would strengthen enforcement of existing gun laws and prioritize this issue?

I believe that there is room for substantial improvement with respect to enforcement of the current gun laws. The President has explained that he wishes to give prosecutors the resources they need to aggressively enforce our gun laws and provide more funding for aggressive fun law enforcement programs such as Texas Exile and Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia. I will fully support the President's agenda in this area.

Q. In September 1998, when you chaired a subcommittee hearing on the intent of the Second Amendment, you stated: "I believe it is time that we once again recognize the Second Amendment for what it is. It is a protection of individual liberty." Given your view of the Second Amendment, do you believe that all gun control laws are unconstitutional? As Attorney General, would you urge the Supreme Court to accept your interpretation of the Second Amendment?

I do not believe that the Second Amendment prohibits common-sense gun control measures, and if confirmed, as Attorney General I will vigorously defend federal gun control statutes passed by Congress whenever there is a good-faith and conscientious basis for doing so.

Q: In the case of United States v. Emerson, a criminal defendant is challenging his indictment for possessing a gun while under a domestic violence restraining order. He argues that the federal law violates the Constitution. The Justice Department is currently defending the constitutionality of that federal law on appeal before the Fifth Circuit. Will you commit to continuing the defense of that law?

I am not familiar with the details of this case. As a general matter, however, I will defend the constitutionality of any Act of Congress that does not implicate executive authority and for which a reasonable defense can be mounted. Although I have not reviewed the details of this case and my final determination would require that review and a consultation with the Department of Justice officials handling the case, I have no reason to believe that the Department would not continue to defend the constitutionality of the Act of Congress at issue in this litigation.

Q: What current gun control restrictions would you like to see relaxed or eliminated? As Attorney General, would you use your influence to encourage such changes?

The President has explained that he would support legislation to allow active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If confirmed, I will fully support the President's position on this issue.

IMMIGRATION

Q: Are there any aspects of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act that you would support changing? Please explain.

I have not examined the provisions of the 1996 legislation closely, but am aware that many people have raised a number of potential issues resulting from that legislation. If confirmed, I will study these issues carefully and work with the President and Congress to develop any reforms that might be needed to make the immigration laws fairer, more effective, and more humane.

Q: Would you support giving veterans of our armed forces an individualized hearing before being deported for relatively minor criminal offenses? Would you support giving other long-term residents of the United States individualized hearings before they are deported for similar offenses?

I believe that every individual appearing before our courts of law should be accorded the full protections of Due Process.

Q: Under the current expedited removal system, also adopted in 1996, there is strong evidence that aliens fleeing religious, political, or other forms of persecution may be summarily returned to their native countries without ever even appearing before an immigration judge. As Attorney General, would you be willing to conduct a review of this program?

Yes.

IMPEACHMENT

Q. In September 1998, you issued a statement calling upon Democratic candidates for office not to accept fundraising assistance from President Clinton, saying that "[t]o entangle campaign fundraising with impeachment is bad for public confidence." You also said: "In an impeachment proceeding, the constitutional role of Senators is to sit as jurors on impeachment articles voted by the House of Representatives. The public must have high confidence in the fairness of the proceedings." You issued the statement despite the fact that only a month before, your Spirit of America PAC had rented its donor list to the Paula Jones Legal Defense Fund, thus profiting from the very woman whose lawsuit gave rise to impeachment proceedings. Then, your PAC proceeded to rent your donor list to the Linda Tripp Legal Defense Fund on February 9, 1999, three days before your vote to convict President Clinton on both impeachment counts. Your PAC received additional payments from the Tripp fund in April and May of 1999.
(a) Do you believe that renting the lists to figures with such a vested interest in the conviction of President Clinton was appropriate given your status as a juror?
(b) Do you believe that renting your PAC's donor lists to these two legal defense funds while impeachment proceedings were in progress was "bad for public confidence"?

These donor lists were rented without my knowledge or approval. Once I became aware that the list had been rented to these organizations, I directed that the lists no longer be rented to these organizations.

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT:

Q. Putting aside the merits of the International Criminal Court, or whether the United States should ratify the treaty, on what did you base your conclusion in your 1998 Southern Partisan magazine interview that the treaty establishing the International Criminal Court "would make withholding of an abortion a crime against humanity," when the treaty defines "forced pregnancy" to mean "the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law" and excludes "national laws relating to pregnancy"?

I do not recall the specific basis for that statement. As part of my duties on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I had heard concerns that despite efforts to define the term, the concept of a "forced pregnancy" had sufficient elasticity to prompt legitimate concerns about whether such a prohibition should be included in a treaty which would become the law of the land. Whatever my views as a legislator, however, I will enforce the law of land.

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

Q: In 1995, you voted in favor of a motion offered by Senator Phil Gramm to eliminate the Legal Services Corporation, which provides legal assistance for the poor.
(a) Do you still believe that the Legal Services Corporation should be eliminated?
(b) As Attorney General, would you encourage or assist in any way efforts to eliminate or reduce funding for the Legal Services Corporation?

President Bush has indicated that the Legal Services Corporation should be maintained, but reformed to refocus on its original mission of providing legal aid to those in need. I will support and promote the President's position on this issue.

DESEGREGATION

Q. The Bush transition team has tried to bolster your record on appointments of minorities while you were Governor and stated that out of 70 judges you appointed, 11.4 percent were African Americans. But this figure does not include the 51 interim judicial appointments you made as governor. Is that correct?

There were 70 panels of three individuals submitted by the appropriate commission for appellate and trial court vacancies presented to me as Governor under Missouri's nonpartisan court plan. There was only one African-American candidate who was not then or later appointed by me to a current or subsequent judgeship. In effect, eight out of nine available minority candidates were appointed from these panels, including the first African American on the Missouri Court of Appeals and the first African American woman on the St. Louis County Circuit Court. These appointments are for life, with retention votes every 12 years.

For counties outside of the nonpartisan court plan, 21 judges were appointed to vacancies until the next election, none of whom were African American. However, our research has found no minority members of the Missouri Bar who expressed an interest in or were available (by virtue of residency) for any of these vacancies for these out-state judgeships (which must stand for election every four years for an Associate Circuit Judge, and six years for a Circuit Judge). These appointments are for as short as 30 days and as long as several years until the next election.

Q: When you ran for governor in 1984, you made political use of the fact that you were nearly subject to contempt of court from a federal judge, stating, "Ask Judge Hungate who threatened me with contempt." As U.S. Attorney General, would you use threats of contempt against the Justice Department for political purposes? Do you believe that as a political leader and sitting Attorney General of Missouri, it was in any way divisive or inappropriate to politicize the desegregation issue in this fashion? Does it not disturb you then that a federal court said you had "voluntarily rode the [desegregation litigation] to political prominence"?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I would obviously hope to avoid any threats of contempt, and would not use any legal proceedings for political purposes. It is not accurate that I "politicized" desegregation in Missouri; to the contrary, I urged continued fealty to the rule of law in the face of strong political pressure by other elected officials to do otherwise. Finally, it is not unusual for a court to criticize litigants who appear before it; like other litigants, I take no pleasure from such criticism.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Q: The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in a case challenging the use of affirmative action by the University of Michigan that "diversity constitutes a compelling governmental interest in the context of higher education justifying the use of race as one factor in the admissions process" (2000 WL 1827468).

The United States filed a brief on behalf of the University of Michigan in this litigation. Do you agree that diversity constitutes a compelling governmental interest justifying the use of race as a factor in admissions, or would you recommend that the Bush Administration switch sides and support the plaintiffs in appeal of the Court's judgment?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will firmly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms. It would, however, be imprudent of me to comment on the particulars of the Michigan case without first conducting a full and fair review of the facts and law surrounding that case. If confirmed, I pledge that no decision will be made absent such a thorough review.

Q. As Attorney General, would you support the use of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to prevent universities and colleges that receive Federal funds from considering race in admissions?

If confirmed, I commit to you that any decision that I make will be law-oriented, not results-oriented. This is true with respect to Title VI, as it is with all other laws. Thus, I pledge that any decision made with respect to Title VI will me made only after a full and fair review of that law. Not having had an opportunity to conduct such review with the benefit of the full learning of the Department of Justice on this question, I believe that it would be imprudent for me to comment further on that statute.

Q. In the Bakke case, the Supreme Court allowed universities to consider race in their admissions processes. Do you consider Bakke to be the law of the land, which you would be sworn to uphold? Do you consider it settled law?

The Bakke decision must be viewed in light of the many decisions on related matters that the Supreme Court has handed down in the past two decades. Of course, the Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality, and, unless the Court decides otherwise, Bakke remains the law of the land.

Q. Would an Ashcroft Justice Department consider any use of race permissible in the educational context?

Yes.

Q. At the confirmation hearing for Bill Lann Lee in October 1997, you asked Mr. Lee about the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand, which held that federal racial classifications must serve a compelling governmental interest, and must be narrowly tailored to further that interest. In particular, you asked Mr. Lee whether, in his opinion, any of the current federal race-conscious programs could survive the strict scrutiny test of Adarand. Let me ask you a similar question. Are there any current federal race-conscious programs that you think are not constitutional under Adarand, and if so, would you defend the constitutionality of these programs if you are confirmed as Attorney General?

It is likely that some federal race-conscious programs are not constitutional under Adarand. Indeed, my recollection is that even Mr. Lee identified one such program. That being said, it is the longstanding policy of the Department of Justice to defend any federal law for which a reasonable and conscientious defense can be raised. If confirmed, I will enforce this policy in the area of racial set-asides, as in all other areas.

Q: What qualities would you advise President-elect Bush to seek in an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights? Should that person have direct experience in the civil rights field? Is it your view that the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should take the position that all forms of federal preferences based on race fail Adarand's strict scrutiny test?

When he nominated me as Attorney General, the President asked me to give all advice to him and to him alone, and that is a commitment I believe I should honor. As a general matter, however, I believe an Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights should be a person committed to fully and fairly enforcing the Nation's civil rights laws. That person should also, in my view, have some experience in the field of civil rights, a commitment to the rule of law, and a genuine passion for protecting the rights of the disadvantaged.

Q. As Attorney General, you would be responsible for offering opinions to all federal departments and agencies concerning the scope of federal law. If confirmed, what advice would you give the Department of Transportation and other federal offices regarding the use of affirmative action in their employment, contracting, and other activities?

When he nominated me as Attorney General, the President asked me to give all advice to him and to him alone, and that is a commitment I believe I should honor. That same principle should apply to legal opinions delivered to Executive agencies. As a general matter, however, I believe that any federal affirmative action program can be assessed only in the context of the facts and circumstances of its application. If confirmed as Attorney General, I would to defend any federal affirmative action program for which a reasonable and conscientious defense can be raised.

Q: Congress has reauthorized the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program since the Adarand decision, adopting the view that it was sufficiently narrowly tailored to survive "strict scrutiny." You took the view that "[g]overnment programs which are officially sanctioned and administered, to discriminate against any American on the basis of that citizen's race should be ended, starting with [the DBEP]." As Attorney General, would you vigorously defend all federal affirmative action programs before the Supreme Court and the lower courts? Would you consider instituting lawsuits to attack the constitutionality of state and municipal government affirmative action programs?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I would adhere to the Department of Justice's longstanding policy of defending every federal law for which a reasonable and conscientious argument can be made. I would apply this policy to affirmative action programs, as all other programs. With respect to issues related to state and municipal affirmative action programs, I will review those programs, as all others, on a case-by-case basis consistent with the law.

Q. In the late 1980s, when you were governor of Missouri, you served on the Commission on Minority Participation in Education and American Life, yet declined to sign the report, which found that "in education, employment, income, health, longevity, and other basic measures of individual and social well-being, gaps persist - and in some cases are widening - between members of minority groups and the majority population." At the time, you said that the report's "generalizations about setbacks in progress are overly broad and counterproductive." Did you believe then that there were gaps in education, employment, income, health, longevity, and other basic measures of individual and social well-being between minority and non-minority Americans? If so, do you believe there are still such gaps, and as Attorney General, what steps would you take to address those gaps?

Yes, such gaps do exist. Indeed, the President has spoken movingly about the "soft bigotry of low expectations," and the dual societies it creates. As Attorney General, I will fully and fairly enforce all federal laws addressing civil rights and other related issues.

Q. A spokeswoman for President-elect Bush's transition has stated that you believed that the report produced by the Commission on Minority Participation in Education and American Life "addressed the plight of some minorities, but it didn't address all minorities." Is that why you withheld your support for it, and if so, what minorities do you believe the report failed to address?

As I recall, the reason cited is one among several reasons why I did not sign the report. While I do not have a full recollection of the concerns that I had in the late 1980s, I believe it is incumbent upon leaders to expand educational opportunities for every American, no matter his or her circumstance.

Q: When asked by Southern Partisan magazine about the disciplining of a student who had a Confederate flag on her knapsack, you said: "The right of individuals to respect our history is a right that the politically correct crowd wants to eliminate, and that is just not acceptable." Do you support or oppose the efforts to disestablish Confederate symbols in Mississippi, Georgia, and South Carolina?

The State of Missouri does not fly the Confederate flag, and I do not believe that it should. I believe we should all be vigilant in working to promote a more racially tolerant society for everyone.

RELIGION/CHARITABLE CHOICE

Q: In 1998, you told the Christian Coalition: "A robed elite have taken the wall of separation built to protect the church and made it a wall of religious oppression." Please state which Supreme Court decisions, if any, that you believe have enacted "religious oppression."

The First Amendment's balance between protected free exercise of religion, and forbidden establishments of religion, is a difficult one. Many have expressed both agreement and disagreement with the Supreme Court's decisions in this area. As Attorney General, I will enforce the law, as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Q As Governor of Missouri, you did not support laws to ensure that federally funded church-run day-care centers would be required to meet basic health and safety requirements, such as smoke detectors, fire exits and minimum staffing requirements, that applied to all other day-care centers, public and private, to protect the safety of the children, and, instead, publicly opposed and threatened to veto them. Can you explain why, and can you tell us what standards you would apply as Attorney General when it comes to balancing issues like children's safety with the autonomy of federally funded religious organizations in the context of Charitable Choice programs?

As Governor of Missouri, I often faced the difficult question of how to balance the need for important health and safety regulations against the need to protect religious institutions from excessive entanglement with government. This need for balance guided the decisions that I made as Governor. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce this balance consistently with the Supreme Court case law on the matter.

Q. As Attorney General, one of your most important duties is to provide legal counsel to the other branches of the Federal Government on how to abide by their constitutional duties. Would you advise other Government departments to comply fully with all aspects of the Establishment Clause as interpreted by existing Supreme Court precedent?

I can assure you that I will fully advise all federal government officials of the state of Supreme Court case law and the implications of any decision that they make with respect to such case law. I do not think it appropriate, however, to disclose publicly in advance the substance of any specific advice that I may or may not give.

Q. As Attorney General, which of the Supreme Court's religion decisions would you request the Court to overturn?

As Attorney General, I do not believe it would be appropriate to seek the reversal of any Supreme Court decisions in a vacuum. As cases arise, I will, if confirmed, thoroughly review the law and facts of each and every one, and determine what positions of advocacy are consistent with the law and in the best interests of the United States. I will apply this approach to religion cases, as well as to all other cases.

Q. As Attorney General, would you intervene on behalf of local school districts seeking to revisit the Supreme Court's decision last year in Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000), which held that a school district's policy of permitting student-led and student-initiated prayers prior to football games violated the Establishment Clause?

If confirmed, I can assure you that I will approach all prospective cases in the same manner: I will evaluate the law and facts of each case, and make a judgment on which position of advocacy is consistent with the law and in the best interest of the United States. That being said, it would be imprudent for me to comment on a particular case not having had the benefit of the Department of Justice's full learning on that case.

Q. As Attorney General, would you ask the Supreme Court to revisit Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), which held that it was unconstitutional for a State to forbid the teaching of evolution unless it was accompanied by teaching of "creation science"? Do you agree with the Court's decision in that case? Were you in part referring to that case when you told the Conservative Political Action Conference Annual Meeting in 1997 that "Over the last half century, the federal courts have usurped from school boards the power to determine what a child can learn"? What other cases were you referring to in that statement?

As Attorney General, I do not believe that I would have the authority to ask the Court to simply revisit a prior decision outside the context of a specific case. Moreover, a decision as to which arguments to advance in such a case cannot and should not be made independent of the factual circumstances and legal question raised in the case. Thus, it would be imprudent for me to commit to advancing or not advancing a particular argument outside the context of a specific case. As to the federal courts' voluminous decisions in this area - rendered at all levels of the federal judiciary - many individuals have commented both favorably and unfavorably on these decisions. I cannot specifically recall which of the numerous federal court decisions in this area were encompassed by the quote that you referenced.

BUSALACCHI CASE

Q. When you were Governor, Mr. Busalacchi's daughter was severely injured in a car crash when she was in high school, and according to written testimony submitted by Mr. Busalacchi, her doctors told him that she would remain in a persistent vegetative state for the remainder of her life. When Mr. Busalacchi sought to move his daughter from Missouri to Minnesota, the Ashcroft Administration obtained a restraining order preventing Mr. Busalacchi from removing her from the state and launching a two-year battle seeking to prevent Mr. Busalacchi from making determinations about his daughter's medical treatment. According to an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in December 1990, Mr. Busalacchi "came to the Missouri Center to move his daughter to Minnesota. He was met by an administrator, two state troopers and a sheriff's deputy." Mr. Busalacchi has testified that you, through your administration, injected your "political and religious views into [his] family's tragedy." Do you believe that your administration's actions in the Busalacchi matter showed a proper respect for Mr. Busalacchi's moral and constitutional rights as a parent?

Yes.

Q. As U.S. Attorney General, would you advocate preventing the families of patients in federally run medical facilities from making their own determinations whether to continue feeding their loved ones who had no hope of regaining consciousness?

As Attorney General, I would enforce any and all federal statutes on this issue.

SPECIAL PROTECTION FOR INDUSTRIES AND TOBACCO

Q. Why did you change your position from advocating increases in cigarette taxes to reduce smoking and improve the health of Missourians as Governor to opposition of higher cigarette taxes as a Senator and potential presidential candidate?

As a non-smoker, I believe that smoking is a bad and dangerous habit, and that all appropriate measures should be taken to discourage its use. At the same time, in my role as a legislator and governor, it has always been my view that the tax code should be as simple and fair as reasonably possible. The positions that I have taken over the years, all of which are not relevant to what my role would be as Attorney General, are, I believe, fully consistent with these principles.

Q. In 1998, you voted in support of the Gregg-Leahy amendment to strike all special legal protection for the tobacco industry during the debate on national tobacco control legislation. In the last Congress, however, you sponsored legislation to provide asbestos manufacturers with special legal protection, cosponsored another bill to provide small businesses with special legal protection and voted for a third bill to provide special legal protection to the high-tech industry for year 2000 liability. What has been your standard as a Senator for determining when an specific industry deserves special legal protection from Congress, and, as Attorney General, will you advocate that any specific industry deserves special legal protection?

As Attorney General, I will enforce all laws enacted by Congress. This duty is separate and independent from any actions that I took as a Senator. As a Senator, I evaluated each piece of legislation in its totality, and attempted to make a determination on whether a piece of legislation was, on the whole, good or bad public policy.

Q. Career prosecutors at the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the tobacco industry to recover smoking-related health care expenditures, alleging that by concealing and deceiving consumers of health risks of their tobacco products for the past forty years the tobacco industry engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). As Attorney General, would you support or oppose the Department of Justice's lawsuit against the tobacco industry?

I assure you that any decision that I make on this lawsuit will come only after a full and fair consultation with the appropriate officials in the Department of Justice. Absent such consultation, however, it would be imprudent for me to comment on the merits of this case.

Q. In constituent letters to Missourians, you have written that you are "concerned that the DOJ lawsuit could set an unwise precedent leading to the federal government filing lawsuits against countless other legal industries." Do you believe the federal government has a role in seeking redress for the alleged misconduct by the tobacco industry?

Yes, if the facts and the law so warrant.

Q. Do you believe that the tobacco companies deceived the American public about the risks of death and disease from using their tobacco products? Do you believe that the tobacco companies marketed their products to children? Do you believe that the tobacco companies exploited the addictive nature of nicotine in their products? Would these personal views influence any decision that you may make on continuing the Department of Justice lawsuit against the tobacco industry if you are confirmed as Attorney General?

Any decision that I make regarding any litigation, including the tobacco litigation, will be based on a thorough view of the facts and law pertaining to that case. As I said during the hearing, I will be law-oriented, not results-oriented. In light of this, it would be imprudent for me to comment on the specific facts of the tobacco suit without having the benefit of the Department of Justice's full learning on this question.

"TAKINGS" LEGISLATION

Q. In 1998, you supported "taking" legislation reported by this Committee on a 10-to-8 party-line vote which would take away power from mayors, local planners, city councils and local zoning boards over local land use. As Attorney General, would you stand with most of the Nation's governors, mayors, city officials and towns in opposing it?

As Attorney General, I would enforce such legislation if enacted.

Q. In Williamson County Regional Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), the Supreme Court declared that in a takings challenge to state or local action, no violation of the Takings Clause occurs until the landowner seeks and is denied compensation in state court. Do you agree with this analysis of the Takings Clause?

The Supreme Court's decision in Williamson was a significant one, and one which, I believe, is now the law of the land. As Attorney General, I will abide by this decision as well as all others.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Q. Do you think that while Congress considers the merits of a constitutional amendment on victims' rights that it should, at the same time, be considering legislative measures to benefit victims, such as the Crime Victims Assistance Act, which I introduced with Senator Kennedy in the last Congress?

I believe that it is important to consider various ways to protect the rights of crime victims. I am, however, no longer a member of Congress, and so would not presume to instruct the Congress on what legislative measures it is appropriate for it to consider or not consider.

Q. The Clinton Administration supported the idea of a victims' rights amendment to the Constitution, but only if it preserved the fundamental constitutional rights of those accused of crimes. Senator Feingold has offered amendments to the proposed constitutional amendment that would expressly preserve the rights of the accused, which as a Senator, you voted against. What position would you take as Attorney General, and why?

As Attorney General, I would fully and fairly enforce whichever constitutional amendment was duly enacted in accordance with the Constitution.

BANKRUPTCY

Q. During the debate on the Bankruptcy Reform Act in the last Congress, you voted to support the Schumer-Leahy Amendment to end abusive bankruptcy filings used to avoid the legal consequences of violence, vandalism, and harassment to deny access to legal health services. Do you agree that any fair and balanced bankruptcy reform bill must include provisions to prevent the discharge of penalties for violence against family planning clinics, as the Schumer-Leahy Amendment did in the last Congress?

As a Senator, I supported and voted for the Schumer-Leahy Amendment. Ultimately, however, it is up to the Congress, of which I am no longer a member, to make these policy judgments.

FOLLOW-UP FROM HEARINGS

Q. You testified on Wednesday that you "probably should do more due diligence" to answer the question whether Southern Partisan magazine is a racist organization. Have you since done further due diligence? If so, do you now believe that Southern Partisan magazine is racist and if so, would you like to take this opportunity to apologize for your association with it?

I reject racism in all it forms. I find racial discrimination abhorrent, and against everything that I believe in. If the allegations about Southern Partisan magazine are true, then I emphatically reject it as a racist publication.

Q: When asked about your actions in connection with the nomination of James Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, you testified that you "had known Mr. Hormel for a long time. He had recruited me, when I was a student in college, to go to the University of Chicago Law School." Please list for the Committee any conversation, meeting, or other contact you recollect having with Mr. Hormel, while you were a law student or afterwards, as well as any other evidence you would like to provide to support your testimony that you "had known Mr. Hormel for a long time." In addition, please list for the Committee any conversations, correspondence, or other contact you had with Mr. Hormel when you were a student in college that you believe can fairly be defined as "recruiting."

As I explained during the hearing, I have known Mr. Hormel for many years, dating back to my days in law school. I have, however, not kept a detailed record of every contact that I have had with Mr. Hormel.

Q. Please provide the Committee with a detailed list of the facts on which you based your claims regarding Judge White's record.

I based my claims concerning Judge White's record on his record as a Missouri Supreme Court judge. That record consists of Judge White's published opinions, which are all available in the published case reports and online. Those published opinions provide a detailed recitation of the relevant law and facts in those cases. My claims were based on those cases.

Q. Senator Barbara Mikulski has requested answers to following questions:
(A) Do you intend to be a watchdog on civil rights? How will you be a watchdog?

Yes. As I said during the hearing, no American should be turned away from a polling place because of the color of her skin or the sound of his name, or denied access to public accommodations or a job because of disability, or prevented from owning a home in the neighborhood of his choice because of skin color, or denied an educational opportunity because of race or sex, or fear being stopped by police because of race. I will vigorously enforce the civil rights laws in order to ensure that no American suffers the indignity of unlawful discrimination.

(B) I have looked into your record as an executive, both as Attorney General and Governor in the State of Missouri. Can you explain why, as governor of Missouri in 1988, you vetoed the Voter Registration Reform Bill that would have increased minority voter registration in the city St. Louis, when it was precisely the same type of voter registration that was already taking place in St. Louis county?

My votes on this matter were fully explained in my veto messages, which I read into the record during the hearing.

(C) As a senator, you have voted against expanding the Hate Crimes Prevention Act. As Attorney General, how do you intend to enforce the Hate Crimes Statute?

If confirmed, I will fully enforce any law that Congress passes, and defend the constitutionality of any law for which a reasonable and conscientious defense can be made. These standards apply to the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, as well as any other legislation that Congress chooses to enact.

(D) You have said, " [i]f I had the opportunity to pass but one single law, I would . . . ban every abortion except for those medically necessary to save the life of the mother." (Human Events, newsletter.) Can you provide assurance that you will enforce existing laws protecting a woman's right to choose, and that you will investigate and prosecute those individuals or groups who have targeted for assassination providers of legal abortion services?

Yes. I will fully and vigorously enforce the law.

Q: Senator Blanche Lincoln has requested answers to the following questions:
(A) Arkansas experiences difficulty in recruiting physicians and other qualified medical professionals to work in rural communities, and she is interested in learning more about your decision as Attorney General of Missouri to intervene in Sermchief v. Gonzales and State of Missouri (660 S.W.2d 683). This case was an attempt to prohibit qualified nurses with advanced training from providing necessary and routine gynecological services to thousands of underprivileged female patients in your state. These services included conducting breast and pelvic examinations, performing PAP smears and providing information about effective contraceptive practices. Since we firmly believe that residents in rural areas should have access to the same specialized medical services that are available to residents who live in urban communities, as Attorney General, how can we be assured that you will not take similar steps to prevent appropriately trained medical professionals from doing their job, even if you personally disapprove of the service or services being provided?

I agree with you that making medical services uniformly available throughout a state, including rural areas, is an important goal. In the Sermchief litigation, the Attorney General's office participated on both sides of the case. The office filed one amicus brief under my name on behalf of the State Nursing Board that urged a broad and uniform construction of the relevant statutory provisions. This position, which is similar to the position ultimately adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court, would facilitate the availability of uniform nursing services throughout the State. The office also filed a brief as amicus/intervenor addressing a single issue on the other side of the case. The appellants argued for a construction of the statute that would permit nurses to provide a broad array of nursing services and that if the statute did not bear such a construction then the statute would be unconstitutionally vague. The brief as amicus/intervenor took no position on the first issue, but did defend the Missouri statute against the attack that it was unconstitutionally vague. The Missouri Supreme Court accepted the appellants' statutory construction argument and so never reached the vagueness question.

(B) We have a profound respect for our system of government and the careful balance of power our founding fathers established in the Constitution. Furthermore, we believe that public officials have a responsibility to discharge their duties in a way that recognizes the vital role each branch plays to ensure those we represent have confidence in the framework we, as public officials, are sworn to uphold and defend. We raise this issue because of comments you have reportedly made about Supreme Court Justices as well as decisions rendered by that court. In one case you asserted that a decision by the Supreme Court was "illegitimate." In addition, other statements attributed to you suggest that you view the role of constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court as merely a matter of individual justices "chang[ing] their mind" or imposing their personal policy judgments on the nation. In light of the responsibilities that will be entrusted to you if confirmed as Attorney General, please clarify what you mean when you say a decision by the Supreme Court is "illegitimate." Is an "illegitimate" ruling by the Supreme Court, in your view, the law of the land? In addition, do you think public criticism of the Supreme Court and justices who sit on that court would be appropriate in your role as Attorney General?

Any decision rendered by the United States Supreme Court is the law of the land. Nevertheless, public commentary on the actions of the Supreme Court is healthy in a democracy. As Attorney General, any comments that I make with respect to Supreme Court will be made with the utmost respect. And it will be my solemn duty to follow and enforce the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States.

Q. Senator Lincoln witnessed racial integration as a young elementary school student in Helena, Arkansas, and has a strong commitment to ending racial injustice, especially in our system of public education. While respecting whatever personal views you may have on school desegregation programs in general, why did you take extraordinary steps as Attorney General of Missouri to fight the implementation of a voluntary desegregation plan in St. Louis? According to the record in this matter, you unsuccessfully appealed the issue of "remedial scope" in Liddell v. State of Missouri multiple times to the same court, presumably because you hoped to receive a different response. While bringing multiple appeals in a particular case in itself isn't necessarily a cause for concern, under what circumstances do you think it is a legitimate use of public resources to bring multiple appeals before the same court on a particular issue when your initial appeal is rejected? Once a court has ruled on an issue and you have exhausted your appeals before higher courts, you accept the decisions rendered in the case and move on. Is that your view as well, or was there something different about the St. Louis case that justified your vigorous actions over several years to prevent implementation of the desegregation plan in that matter?

I fully agree that segregation is wrong and unconstitutional. I strongly support integration in all our nation's schools. My actions in this case reflected my obligation as the state attorney general to defend my client in the litigation, and each appeal represented a separate, appealable legal issue, not an attempt to relitigate already decided issues. Indeed, Missouri's current attorney general, a Democrat, has pursued a similar course of litigation representing the state of Missouri. And I of course agree that once the court has ruled, one must accept the court's ruling, subject, of course, to any right of appeal. Indeed, in Missouri, I repeatedly had to urge fealty to rule of law in the face of political pressure to do otherwise from other elected officials.

Q. Senator Carl Levin has requested answers to the following questions:
(A) You made a number of strong statements in your speech to the Senate of October 4, 1999 in opposition to the nomination of Judge Ronnie White. You said that Judge White "has been very willing to say: We should seek, at every turn, in some of these cases to provide an additional opportunity for an individual to escape punishment." Do you believe that is a fair characterization of Judge White's record?

Do you believe it is fair to say that Judge White's opinions are "procriminal" and that he will "push law in a procriminal direction" and that he practices "procriminal jurisprudence"?

Do you believe it is fair to say Judge White's "opinions, and particularly his dissents, reflect a serious bias against a willingness to impose the death penalty"? (Given the apparent fact that Judge White's average for upholding death penalty cases is 70 percent, and the averages of your own appointees to the Missouri Supreme Court closely mirrors his, ranging from 75 to 81 percent.)

I stand by my criticisms of Judge White's voting record in death penalty cases. By my count, Judge White dissented in approximately 11.6 percent of death penalty cases, in comparison of rates of 1.2-2.6 percent for judges that I nominated to the bench when governor. In my view, Judge White would not have been an appropriate choice for the federal district court, where his decisions alone could, in habeas cases, reverse the judgment of the entire Missouri Supreme Court.

(B) A Washington Post article of January 1, 2001, reports that your aides "now acknowledge that they initially spread the word about White to law enforcement groups." Is that an accurate quote and, if so, how is that consistent with your statement to the Senate of October 4, 1999, that law enforcement "decided to call our attention to Judge White's record in the criminal law"?

It is altogether possible, indeed likely, that my staff had contact with constituents that had an interest in Judge White's nomination. This is, however, perfectly normal, and fully consistent with my statement quoted above.

(C) What is the "personal political agenda" that you said in your Senate statement of October 4, 1999, that Judge White would have advanced as a federal judge?

My criticism of Judge White was based primarily upon his decisions in death penalty cases. My recollection is that the statement to which you refer addressed Judge White's views in the area of the rights of criminal defendants.

(D) You stated in your Senate statement of October 4, 1999, that Judge White has "written or joined in three times as many dissents in death penalty cases." To what numbers are you referring?

By my count, Judge White dissented in approximately 11.6 percent of death penalty cases. In contrast, Judges that I nominated to the bench dissented in approximately 1.2-2.6 percent of death penalty cases.

(E) Is it reasonable for an African-American facing trial to seek recusal of a judge who five days before trial made highly inappropriate, derogatory comments about African-Americans? If so, is it fair to call Judge White "procriminal" for accepting the reasonableness of that argument?

While criminal defendants may advance many arguments in the range of "reasonableness," it is not, in my view, appropriate to reverse a criminal conviction where there is no finding that any alleged error would affect the outcome of the case.

(F) In your speech to the Claremont Institute, you said that funding for drug treatment "accommodates us at our lowest and least." Who or what are the "lowest and least"?

In my speech at the Claremont Institute, I was expressing the concern that our paramount message to America's youth must be that drug use is wrong. Of course, I agree that treatment must be part of a comprehensive approach to combating drug use. Such treatment, however, should not come at the expense of undermining the primary message.

(G) As a Senator on the Judiciary Committee last Congress, did you play any role or support the Committee's failure to hold hearings or act upon the 17 Circuit Court of Appeals nominees left pending in Committee at the end of the last Congress? Was it fair for the Judiciary Committee to keep 15 of those nominees pending - many of whom waited over a year - without even scheduling confirmation hearings?

Like all Senators on the Judiciary Committee, I was involved in reviewing judicial nominations. During that time, I believe that all of my actions were consistent with ensuring that nominees were given a full and fair review.

(H) At the beginning of the 107th Congress, President Clinton renominated eight appellate court nominees who had been left pending at the end of the last Congress. All eight were nominated for seats considered "judicial emergencies" by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Do you believe the Judiciary Committee should hold hearings on these eight who were renominated for "judicial emergencies" and that the Senate should vote up or down on their nominations?

It is the prerogative of both the Senate and the President to determine how best to proceed with these nominations. I will defer to their judgment on this matter.

(I) Congressman Conyers wrote you a letter on January 12, 2001, which he has made public, asking you 16 questions. Have you answered Congressman Conyers and if not do you intend to do so? If so, please attach a copy of your answers.

Congressman Conyers's letter, though written on January 12, was only received by me on January 17. After I have responded to the questions provided by members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, it is then my intent to turn to the questions posed by Congressman Conyers.

Q. Senators Bob Graham and Bill Nelson requested answers to the following questions:
It has been reported that the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is pursuing an investigation into allegations of discrimination in the November 7, 2000, election in Florida, including counties' use of voting devices which result in a significantly higher number of votes cast by certain minority groups being thrown out because of overvotes or undervotes; a situation in which a crowd of protesters stormed an election office in an effort to stop the counting of ballots, thereby potentially intimidating election officials; and allegations of police officers, in an effort to intimidate, placing road blocks in close proximity to polling places. What will be your commitment to continuing this investigation?

(A) Can you assure us that such an investigation will be completed in a timely manner? I would appreciate knowing within 30 days of you assuming the office of the Attorney General what will be the completion date for this investigation.

(B) If violations of the Voting Rights Act are identified, would you consider remedies such as these to be appropriate: to decertify all "punch-card" voting methods and other unreliable voting methods as acceptable voting methods under Florida law; to discontinue all voter purges of the voter registration rolls until the development of procedures to ensure uniform, non-discriminatory application of the law; to provide a mechanism for persons whose names do not appear on the list of registered voters at the polling place to vote in as timely a fashion as those whose names do appear on the list; or to adopt standards and implement training designed to insure that voting systems and procedures at polling places within their jurisdiction are equal, accurate and reliable, and are uniformly administered?

(C) If the independent United States Commission on Civil Rights does discover instances of voter disenfranchisement, will the Department of Justice expand its investigation into allegations of violations of Floridians' voting rights and aggressively prosecute violations of the Voting Rights Act?

(D) Based on what the Department of Justice will learn from this investigation of the 2000 election in Florida, what specific plan will you use to ensure that the discriminatory practices do not recur in future elections? What resources will you commit to ensure that this specific plan achieves its objective of avoiding discriminatory practices in future elections?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will ensure that the allegations of vote irregularities connected with the recent election in Florida are fully investigated, and will take all appropriate steps to complete that investigation in a timely manner. In addition, I will work to ensure that the Congress is kept apprised of the progress of the investigation.

If violations of the Voting Rights Act are identified, I will consider all reasonably appropriate remedies. It would, however, be imprudent for me to comment on any specific remedy without the full learning of the nature of any specific violations which may be found and the various approaches to addressing those violations.

If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Justice takes all reasonable and appropriate steps necessary to investigate all credible allegations of vote irregularities, including any credible allegations raised by the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

Once the Department of Justice completes its investigation, I will be in a position to determine what specific steps are appropriate to address any irregularities discovered, to help ensure that such irregularities do not recur in the future, and to determine the appropriate level of resources to commit to the issue. Such determinations, however, cannot be made in advance of a thorough investigation.

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

Q. What is your philosophy on enforcement of environmental laws?

I firmly believe that the federal government must play an important role in protecting the environment and our natural resources. If confirmed, I will see to it that federal laws protecting the environment are fully and faithfully enforced.

HATE CRIMES

Q. On January 18, 2001, you said, in response to a question from Senator Schumer that you would fully enforce the Hate Crimes Statistics Act. This act, passed in 1990, requires the Justice Department to collect data on crimes which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity" from law enforcement agencies across the country and to publish an annual summary of the findings. In the 1994 crime bill, Congress expanded coverage of the act to require FBI reporting on crimes based on "disability." In the 106th Congress, legislation passed the floor of both the House and the Senate that would require FBI reporting on crimes based on "gender." Unfortunately, it was not enacted into law.

Would you be inclined to recommend that the Administration support adding gender to the categories in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act? If not, why?

Although I cannot comment on the details of the specific legislation, I agree that it is extremely important to take all reasonable and appropriate steps necessary to collect crime statistics. Further, should the referenced legislation be enacted into law, I assure you that if confirmed, I will fully and faithfully enforce that law.

Q. Will you fully enforce the Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act?

If confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce all laws passed by Congress.

Q. If you believe, as you said on January 18, 2001, that the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is constitutional, why did you oppose it as a Senator?

As I explained during the hearing, many laws that some might oppose based on public policy grounds, fully comport with the requirements of the Constitution. There is, in short, nothing inconsistent between voting against a law for policy reasons, but nonetheless fully agreeing that such a law is well within the bounds of Congress's constitutional authority.

Q. Do you believe sexual orientation should be a category added to the federal hate crime law currently used to prosecute hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin and color, 18USC Section 245? If so, why? Or, why not?

President Bush has indicated that he supports Senator Hatch's hate crimes legislation. I support the President's position on this issue.

Q. Do you believe gender should be a category added to the federal hate crime law currently used to prosecute hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin and color, 18 USC Section 245? If so, why? Or, why not?

President Bush has indicated that he supports Senator Hatch's hate crimes legislation. I support the President's position on this issue.

Q. Do you believe disability should be a category added to the federal hate crime law currently used to prosecute hate crimes based on race, religion, national origin and color, 18USC Section 245? If so, why? Or, why not?

President Bush has indicated that he supports Senator Hatch's hate crimes legislation. I support the President's position on this issue.

Q. Under your leadership would the Department of Justice continue the important work of the U.S. Attorney Hate Crimes Working Groups currently in place?

As the Governor of Missouri, I was proud to sign Missouri's first hate crimes legislation. If confirmed, I will take all reasonable and appropriate steps to combat hate crimes at the federal level and will devote the necessary resources to do so.

Q. There are currently studies and training programs on how to identify, report and respond to hate violence as defined by the 1994 Hate Crimes Sentencing Enhancement Act. Will you continue these important outreach and training programs?

As the Governor of Missouri, I was proud to sign Missouri's first hate crimes legislation. If confirmed, I will take all reasonable and appropriate steps to combat hate crimes at the federal level and will devote the necessary resources to do so.

Q. Under your leadership would the Department of Justice continue including "sexual orientation" as a category in the anti-bias programs developed by the Department of Justice or under contracts and grants provided by the DOJ?

As I explained during the hearing, if confirmed, sexual orientation will not be a factor in my hiring decisions. I am, however, not familiar with the details of the particular policy to which you refer.

GUN CONTROL

Q: The United States has a serious problem with illegal firearms trafficking. This is clearly a federal issue, as demonstrated by the experience of my state of New York. New York streets are flooded with guns coming from southern states. For example, 1,685 guns traced to crime scenes in New York originated in Florida, Georgia, the Carolinas, and Virginia. As a candidate for Senate, you were quoted in the St. Louis-Post Dispatch as supporting stronger penalties for people who sell guns illegally as well as for stronger penalties for people who commit crimes with guns.

Do you believe that the federal government should have a strong role in the prosecution of illegal firearm trafficking?

Yes.

Q. Is it your opinion that federal authority to prosecute illegal gun traffickers should be enhanced?

President Bush has made clear that the federal gun laws on the books should be fully and fairly enforced and has proposed additional, common-sense gun restrictions. I will support the President's position on this issue.

Q. Would you say that federal prosecutors should have at their disposal every available tool to prosecute illegal gun runners?

No. For example, as in all prosecutions, federal prosecutors should not be allowed to disregard the strictures of Due Process. But I do agree that prosecuting gun crimes should be a top priority of the Department of Justice.

Q. As a senator did you not oppose the addition of firearms offenses to the list of crimes that could be prosecuted under the federal RICO statute?

My position on this matter was based on my belief that the RICO statutes have, in some circumstances, been abused. Indeed, the ACLU has been very critical of RICO and has opposed its expansion.

Q. A 1999 analysis performed by my staff of crime gun tracing data showed that 1 percent of gun dealers were the source of 45 percent of crime guns. Moreover, a June 2000 study from the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Following the Gun: Enforcing Federal Laws Against Firearms Traffickers, found that corrupt licensed gun dealers were associated with by far the highest mean number of illegally diverted firearms per investigation.

With these facts in mind do you favor measures that would crack down on such "bad apple" dealers?

Yes.

Q. Specifically, would you support criminal prosecution of licensed gun dealers who transfer a firearm "having reason to know" that such a firearm will be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime?

I believe that all federal gun laws should be fully and fairly enforced.

Q. Do you support steps that have been taken to reduce the number of federally licensed gun dealers from nearly a quarter of a million in 1992 to approximately 70,000 today?

I support the full and fair enforcement of all federal gun laws aimed at reducing gun crimes.

Q. Do you support the current concept of background checks for firearm purchasers and will you will work to maintain the effectiveness of the NICS?

Yes, I am committed to doing so.

Q. As you may be aware, the FBI has determined that in order to insure the effectiveness of the NICS, it is essential to maintain an audit log. The FBI has determined that records from NICS should be kept for six months to guarantee that the NICS is functioning. Are you planning to support the FBI's expertise in this matter?

I will fully consult with the experienced professionals of the FBI before making an assessment of the best approach to this issue.

Q. You may be aware that the National Rifle Association filed a lawsuit against the Department of Justice, NRA v. Reno, that would have required the FBI to immediately destroy records from NICS instead of allowing the audit log. The NRA's lawsuit failed. In a case like this, would you side with the FBI and defend the lawsuit?

It would be imprudent of me to comment on a specific lawsuit without the benefit of the FBI and Department of Justice's full learning on this case. Any decision that I make would be done only after full and fair consultation with the experts in this area.

Q. On July 21, 1998, you voted for an amendment offered by Senator Robert Smith from New Hampshire to the Justice Appropriations bill that would have required immediate destruction of any NICS records relating to an approved transfer. You have voted to undermine what the FBI maintains is an essential to successful operation of the NICS. How can we be sure that you will work with the FBI to maintain the integrity of the NICS when you have already sided with the gun lobby over the FBI?

As I explained during the hearing, if confirmed, I will be law-oriented. That means that I will fully and fairly enforce the law as enacted by Congress and signed by the President. My record as Missouri's attorney general attests to the fact that this is a distinction that I fully recognize and adhere to. It further demonstrates my longstanding commitment to law enforcement.

Q. Do you support the current law requiring federally licensed firearm dealers to conduct background checks on firearm purchasers?

The President has indicated that he supports this law, and I support his position on this matter.

Q. What in your opinion is the purpose of the background check law?

The primary purpose of a background check is to prevent those individuals who have been barred by law from purchasing a firearm to purchase one.

Q. Are you aware that the Department of Justice has determined that 95% of background checks are completed within two hours?

I am not familiar with all the details of the Department of Justice's crime statistics.

Q. Are you aware that the Department of Justice has determined that of the remaining 5%, "22% of all gun buyers who are found to be prohibited persons are not found to be prohibited until more than 72 hours have passed."

I am not familiar with all the details of the Department of Justice's crime statistics.

Q. Why did you vote to reduce the time allowed to conduct background checks at gun shows, by all sellers, including licensed dealers, from the current three business days to 24 hours?

As with many laws, the need for health and safety regulation must be balanced against the rights of law-abiding citizens. As a legislator, I believed that a 24-hour background check was the best balance to strike in this area. As Attorney General, I will enforce whatever laws Congress chooses to enact.

Q. Why would you vote to establish a weaker standard for licensed dealers selling at gun shows than dealers who are selling at gun stores?

As discussed above, as with many laws, the need for health and safety regulation must be balanced against the rights of law-abiding citizens. As a legislator, I believed that a 24-hour background check was the best balance to strike in this area. As Attorney General, I will enforce whatever laws Congress chooses to enact.

Q. Are you aware that the FBI has estimated that under a 24-hour time frame, more than 17,000 people who had been stopped would have been sold firearms?

I am not familiar with all the details of the Department of Justice's crime statistics.

Q. The Assault Weapons bill bans the manufacture and importation of semi-automatic assault weapons and high-capacity magazines over 10 rounds as of September 13, 1994. That law is set to sunset on September 13, 2004. What plans do you have as the nation's top law enforcement officer to work to reauthorize that law?

The President has said that he would support reauthorization of the ban on assault weapons. I will support the President's position on this matter.

Q. On two occasions, July 28, 1998, and May 13, 1999, you voted against amendments offered by Senator Feinstein to ban the importation of high capacity magazines, those over 10 rounds. What is your rationale for opposing such a ban on the importation of high capacity magazines which can hold 20, 32 or even 100 rounds of ammunition?

As Attorney General, I will fully enforce our Nation's gun laws. The President has said that he would support banning the importation of high-capacity ammunition magazines. I will support the President's position on this matter.

Q. Would you support legislation that allowed national carrying of concealed handguns?

The President has said that he would support legislation to allow active and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons across state lines, but that, beyond that, the issue is one for states to decide. I will support the President's position on this issue.

Q. As a rule, do you think we are a safer nation if more people are carrying concealed handguns?

The President has indicated that he believes that the Nation would be safer if certain individuals - active and retired law enforcement officers - were able to carry concealed weapons across state lines. Beyond that, it is up to individual states to decide the matter.

Q. As Governor of Missouri, you opposed legislation that would have allowed individuals to carry concealed handguns in your state, is that correct?

The Director of Public Safety, a cabinet appointee of the Governor, and the Superintendent of the Missouri Highway Patrol, also an appointee of the Governor, opposed the legislation. As Governor, I took no position on the legislation, which did not pass the General Assembly.

Q. In 1999, you supported an NRA-backed referendum, Proposition B, to allow carrying concealed handguns in Missouri, is that correct?

Yes.

Q. In fact, you did a radio ad that according to the Associated Press "blanketed the Missouri airwaves" indicating your support for that measure, is that correct?

I did record a radio spot in favor of the referendum. I am not aware of the extent to which that radio spot received air time in the state.

Q. How did that radio ad come about?

Although I do not recall the specific details, my recollection is that supporters of the referendum approached me and asked me to record the radio spot.

Q. Were you aware of who funded the campaign to allow the carrying of concealed handguns in the state?

No. I was not aware of the details of which groups or individuals funded the referendum. My understanding, however, is that such information is publicly disclosed.

Q. Proposition B would have prevented felons and criminals convicted of violent crimes from carrying handguns. But as the system was created, it would have not only allowed, but could not prevent, other categories of criminals, like child molesters and stalkers, from obtaining a license to carry handguns in Missouri. How would Missouri have benefitted from a law that allowed child molesters and stalkers to carry handguns in your state?

My support for this initiative was predicated on the fact that federal law prohibits convicted felons and other prohibited persons from possessing firearms at all. Federal law obviously would preempt any state law that purported to permit felons to possess firearms. To the extent there were loopholes in Missouri law lowering the status of the two crimes you mention in your question, I was unaware of those provisions at the time.

NOMINATIONS

Q. Three months before you voted against Mr. Hormel to be Ambassador to Luxembourg, you joined with a unanimous Senate in approving him as Alternate Delegate to the United Nations General Assembly. What, if anything, did you learn about Mr. Hormel in those intervening three months? Did you speak with Mr. Hormel at any time in those three months? In what way, if at all, was "the totality of [Hormel's] record" different at the time you voted against his nomination as Ambassador to Luxembourg from the time you voted to approve him as a delegate to the United Nations?

Like many other Senators, the standard that I applied for presidential nominees varied depending upon the office for which the nominee was nominated. I thus believed that while Mr. Hormel might serve adequately as an Alternate Delegate to the United Nations General Assembly, he would not, based on the totality of his record, have been an appropriate person to serve as Ambassador to Luxembourg.

Q. You have sponsored legislation that would require drug testing of all prisoners before their release and would prosecute those who test positive for drug use. But you did not provide funding for drug treatment in your bill.

As Attorney General, you would oversee more than 500 drug courts nationally, and you would oversee treatment for prisoners in federal prisons and grants to states to treat prisoners in their systems.

Do you support drug treatment for criminals as effective crime prevention? Would you vigorously support existing prison-based treatment and work with me to ensure that treatment is provided for those in the criminal justice system who need it?

Yes. I fully support prison-based treatment for criminal offenders. I look forward to working with you to make it as effective as possible.

Q. Two offices within the Department of Justice are very near to me: the COPS office and the Violence Against Women Office. We have had very strong and effective directors of these offices over the last six years.

Law enforcement officials and those concerned about domestic violence have not stopped calling, writing, and faxing me since your nomination was announced, wondering whether these offices will receive a strong commitment from the Bush Administration.

I strongly support the objectives of the COPS program to place more beat police on the streets of our nation's communities. In the last Congress I was a cosponsor of your reathorization bill for the COPS program. President Bush has pledged to maintain the current level of funding for the COPS program, but has also pledged to increase the flexibility of the program so that state and local authorities can determine where the money can best be spent. I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goals for the COPS program consistent with the flexibility goals previously stated by the President. I also have been a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act and look forward to working with you to achieve the goals of that act.

Q: If confirmed as Attorney General, how important would it be for you to maintain a separate COPS office within the Department to recognize the federal commitment to state and local law enforcement agencies across this country?

As I stated in my previous answer, I am a strong supporter of the COPS program. The President has stated his support for maintaining the current funding levels of the program as well as giving it greater flexibility in order to demonstrate his strong commitment to state and local law enforcement agencies across the country. I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goals for the COPS program consistent with the flexibility goals previously stated by the President.

Q. I appreciate the fact that you signed on as a co-sponsor of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, as we were making the final push to enact the legislation. Senator Hatch and I had 74 co-sponsors, including 29 Republicans.

The Violence Against Women Office within the Justice Department was created in 1995 to implement the Act. The office works to ensure enforcement of criminal provisions in the Act, assists the Attorney General in formulating relevant policy, and coordinates and administers grants funded by the Act. Many advocates of policies designed to curtail domestic violence have suggested that this Office should be a permanent, independent entity within the Department, with a director who would be presidentially appointed and confirmed by the Senate and would answer directly to the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.

If confirmed, will you support a bill to create this office?

As I have previously stated, I am a strong supporter of the Violence Against Women Act and strongly support full funding in order to achieve its objectives. I am reluctant to express a view on the creation of new statutory entities within the Department until I have had the chance to study the performance of the entities which exist now. I look forward to working with you to make this program as fully effective as possible.

Q: Will you maintain a strong Violence Against Women Office and what qualities would you look for in a new Director?

I believe my previous answer expresses my strong commitment to the Violence Against Women Act. I obviously will look for the best possible director to carry out the duties of the Violence Against Women Office, one committed to the high priority of enforcing the law and helping ensure the safety of women throughout America.

Q. Even the most conservative analysts agree that the 1994 Crime Law that I worked on for five years to pass has been a significant factor in the historically low crime levels throughout our country. Crime is down for the eighth straight year, according to FBI reports, to the lowest levels in 30 years.

The key element of the Crime Law was the commitment to put 100,000 new police officers on the streets across America. We delivered under budget and ahead of schedule.

To date, the COPS office in the Justice Department has funded more than 109,000 new officers.

More than 2,100 of these new officers are in your home state, Missouri, which has received $129 million in Crime Law funds for new police officers over the last six years.

As Attorney General, would you fight for continued funding for the COPS program and other Crime Law programs?

As I stated in a prior answer, I strongly support the objectives of the COPS program to place more beat police on the streets of our nation's communities. In the last Congress I was a cosponsor of your reathorization bill for the COPS program. President Bush has pledged to maintain the current level of funding for the COPS program, but has also pledged to increase the flexibility of the program so that state and local authorities can determine where the money can best be spent. I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goals for the COPS program consistent with the flexibility goals previously stated by the President.

Q. As Attorney General, would you support in the interagency process the bill I introduced last year to put 50,000 more police officers on the street?

I assume your question refers to the COPS program reauthorization bill I cosponsored with you in the last Congress. As previously stated, I continue strongly to support the objectives of and funding for the COPS program. I look forward to working with you to achieve our mutual goals for the COPS program consistent with the flexibility goals previously stated by the President.

Q. Would you support five-year reauthorization of the Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund to support law enforcement and domestic violence programs?

While I cannot take a position on this specific legislation, I am fully committed towards combating violence, and will vigorously enforce any federal legislation enacted toward that end.

Q. As your predecessor will attest, I track implementation of the grants and programs in the Violence Against Women Act very closely.

Your state, Missouri, received $16 million in Violence Against Women Act grants over the past six years, plus an additional $5.7 million in funds for domestic violence shelters.

If confirmed, what will your commitment be to implementing and tracking progress of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000?

If confirmed, I pledge to you that I will be strongly committed to implementing fully the requirements enacted in the Violence Against Women Act of 2000.

Q. The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 and its reauthorization passed last year create programs that have bolstered prosecution of child abuse, sexual assault, and domestic violence cases; increased services for victims by funding shelters and sexual assault crisis centers; and increased resources for law enforcement and prosecutors.

Under your leadership, how will the Justice Department work to end violence against women?

One of the most important things that the Justice Department can do to work to end violence against women is to enforce the laws in this area fully and fairly. If I am confirmed, this is precisely what the Justice Department will do.

Q. Will the Violence Against Women Office continue to collect data and report on intimate partner violence, sexual assault, and stalking?

If confirmed, I will ensure that the Violence Against Women Office takes all actions necessary to fulfill the Justice Department's duty to implement the Violence Against Women Act fully and fairly.

Q. The Violence Against Women Act established several federal crimes: interstate domestic violence, interstate violation of protective orders, and interstate stalking. These laws have led to dozens of federal prosecutions.

Will you continue to enforce these laws vigorously?

Yes.

Q. What would your administration do to train and support U.S. Attorneys in the continued prosecution of these federal crimes?

If confirmed, I will be fully committed to prosecuting the federal crimes under the Violence Against Women Act, and will take steps to ensure that all U.S. Attorneys are aware that this is a priority.

Q. Many have called for a federal hate-crime law. In June 2000, Senator Kennedy proposed a Hate Crimes Bill that would extend criminal protections to targeted communities by adding gender to covered categories.

Will you support passage of a federal hate-crime law to include crimes based on gender?

As Governor of Missouri, I was proud to have signed the first hate crimes legislation to be enacted in the State of Missouri. I agree with the President in supporting Senator Hatch's hate crimes legislation, which passed the Senate last year.

Q. Will you support expansion of the Hate Crimes Statistics Act to include collection of data on gender-based hate crimes?

I would need to study the details of the current coverage of the act and the issues raised by expanded coverage before reaching a final determination. However, as Governor of Missouri, I was proud to have signed the first hate crimes legislation to be enacted in the State of Missouri. I agree with the President in supporting Senator Hatch's hate crimes legislation, which passed the Senate last year.

Q. As demonstrated in the legislative history of the Violence Against Women Act, which includes 17 state gender-bias studies, our justice system has a significant problem: discrimination in treatment of gender-based cases. There is also evidence of widespread race discrimination in the criminal system, especially in the prosecution and conviction of rape cases.

Will your office continue to support programs and training to eradicate race and gender bias within the courts and among prosecutors?

Yes.

Q. What will you do to ensure eradication of race discrimination in state prosecution of rape cases?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will fully enforce all federal civil rights laws, including the Fourteenth Amendment. Together, these laws prohibit states from enforcing their criminal laws in a racially discriminatory manner.

Q. The Children's Health Act enacted in October 2000 contains a number of important drug bills, including the methamphetamine bill that you and I worked to pass. This Act included an anti-addiction medication bill that Senator Hatch and I, along with Senators Levin and Moynihan, worked very hard to pass. The legislation allows qualified doctors to prescribe certain anti-addiction medications from their offices, rather than specialized drug-treatment clinics. This new concept will require time to take hold - time for doctors to be trained and patients to start taking the medication and time for results to be collected and analyzed.

I hope - and I would bet that Chairman Hatch also hopes - that, as Attorney General, you would let this very important and innovative program go forward. Can Senators Hatch, Levin, and I have your commitment that you will help this program go forward?

I pledge that if confirmed, I will fully and faithfully enforce the Children's Health Act, just as I will fully and faithfully enforce all laws duly enacted by Congress.

Q. One of the most important components of the Department of Justice is its Civil Rights Division, which enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, handicap, religion, and national origin.

Historically, the most important tool the Civil Rights Division has wielded in enforcing the law is the so-called pattern-or-practice suit. As the name implies, this tool allows the Division to go after patterns of discrimination, rather than the misdeeds of individuals. For instance, the Civil Rights Division has used pattern-or-practice litigation to reach consent decrees with several law-enforcement agencies. The problem there was rooted not so much in discriminatory conduct by individual officers, but in policies and patterns those agencies adopted years ago that no longer reflect our law.

Can we have your full commitment to the use of pattern-or-practice litigation in enforcing our civil rights laws?

If confirmed as Attorney General, civil rights will be a top priority for the Department of Justice. Indeed, the Department has a special charge and solemn responsibility to enforce our nation's civil rights laws vigorously. In so doing, the Department will use all reasonable and appropriate enforcement tools at its disposable, to effectuate those goals.

Q. Most crime occurs in after-school hours when many children are unattended.

What role do you see for the federal government in crime prevention in general and in after-school programs in particular, such as those conducted by Boys and Girls Clubs?

The President has explained that he is firmly committed to promoting after-school programs. In particular, he has stated that he would introduce legislation to open 100 percent of the 21st Century program's funding to competitive bidding. This will allow youth development groups, local charities, churches, synagogues, mosques and other community and faith-based organizations to compete for these federal funds on an equal footing with schools. In addition, he has stated that he will empower lower-income parents by providing certificates to help defray the cost of after-school activities of their choosing - whether run by a community group, a neighborhood church, or a local school. He has indicated his desire to add an additional $400 million a year to the Child Care Development Block Grant to the states to help 500,000 low-income parents pay for after-school programs. As Attorney General, I will fully support the President's initiatives in these areas.

YOUNGSTOWN PRISON

Q. In Youngstown, Ohio, there is a privately run, medium security prison that houses inmates from the District of Columbia prison system. This is a modern, fully operational prison facility that employs 500 people and is a significant part of the economic development of that region of my state.

Currently, that facility is only half-filled. By September, the D.C. contract will expire, and the inmates will be transferred. If nothing is done, this prison will sit empty and those jobs will be in jeopardy.

At the same time, the federal system is overcrowded and the Bureau of Prisons is looking for new sites to build prisons. The Department is also facing a lack of prison space for undocumented criminal aliens.

Something needs to be done to fill Youngstown and the Department has plenty of need for beds. This really seems like a case where everyone will win if the Department either buys the facility or agrees to send prisoners to Youngstown. The Department needs more prisons, and you need to house prisoners until you get the additional space.

Will you take a look at Youngstown and help me fix this problem?

Although I am not presently familiar with the situation, I will be happy to look into it, consult with the experienced professionals at the Department and the Bureau of Prisons, and work with you on a constructive solution.

Q. During the past few years, the United States Senate has, in my opinion, become a far more partisan, far more antagonistic place. Despite all the talk of Senatorial courtesy during the nomination process this year, the concept of Senatorial courtesy has, in many respects, been lost during this Administration.

One result of this has been the numerous secret "holds" placed on judicial nominations, some lasting for several years. This process is very difficult on the lives of the nominee and his or her family. I have argued many times that if there is a problem with a nominee, someone should just come out and say it. That way, choices can be made out in the open, with the benefit of knowing what one is up against.

Have you ever placed a "hold" on a judicial nomination? If so, please name those you put a "hold" on, and why.

In an effort to fulfill my responsibilities as a United States Senator, I welcomed inquiries by the Majority Leader and Majority Whip regarding the scheduling and floor consideration of items on the legislative and executive calendars. Though I may have expressly requested prior notification during my six years so as to participate in debate or be present for a vote, I do not recall (except as noted in these answers) which, if any, nominations were involved, or the circumstances surrounding any such requests. In at least a couple of cases, however, I expressed a desire to be notified if a nominee were to come up for a vote so I could express my views on the floor.

Q. At the hearings on Ronnie White's nomination in May 1998, Judge White was introduced to the Senate Judiciary Committee by my Republican colleague Senator Christopher Bond of Missouri, and then by Missouri Congressman Bill Clay. After a very positive recommendation by Senator Bond, Congressman Clay told us that:

"He [Senator Ashcroft] told me that he had appointed six of the seven members to the Missouri Supreme Court. Ronnie White was the only one he had not appointed. He said he had canvassed the other six, the ones that he appointed, and they all spoke very highly of Ronnie White and suggested that he would make an outstanding Federal judge. So I think that is the kind of person we need on the Federal bench."

You were present during this Committee hearing and you heard Congressman Clay's report of your conversation, isn't that correct?

I believe I was present, though I do not recall Congressman Clay's comments.

Q. When Congressman Clay reported this conversation with you to the Senate Judiciary Committee, did you object to his description of your conversation? Did you comment at all on the White nomination at that time?

Courtesy is an important part of process in the Senate. I do not recall doing or saying anything to endorse Congressman Clay's statement. My position with respect to Judge White's nomination was longstanding and clear. I raised questions, and submitted follow-up questions, at his May 1998 hearing. I subsequently voted against his nomination in Committee, identifying his dissents in death penalty cases as the basis of my opposition. I again made my views clear in January 1999 when he was renominated. Indeed, in February 1999, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported my objections based on his death penalty dissents. I opposed his nomination in Committee in July 1999. And I spoke to this issue at the first opportunity after a vote was scheduled in October 1999.

Q. Nomination hearings are crucial components of any Senator's performance of his or duty to advise and consent. Hearings enable Senators to directly query nominees about their concerns - and equally important - give nominees an opportunity to explain their record.

In your October 4 and 5 floor statements, you strongly criticized Justice White's record on the death penalty. However, you did not raise the issue of the death penalty once during oral and written questions of Justice White in his May 14, 1998, hearing.

Subsequent to the May 14, 1998, hearing and prior to your October 5th speech, did you ever submit a written or oral request to Mr. White for information about his decisions on the death penalty?

Yes. My written questions inquired about a dissent he had written in a death penalty case. In making my decision with respect to Judge White, I thoroughly reviewed his record, which is available to all members of the public. I believe that this review provided a fully adequate basis upon which I could render a decision.

Q. If not, why did you not ask Justice White for more information?

As discussed, Judge White's reported decisions provided what I believed to be a fully adequate record upon which I could render a decision in the matter.

Q. Did you feel satisfied that you had a fair assessment of his record?

Yes.

Q. In your floor statements before the Senate on October 4 and October 5, 1999, you accused Justice White of being especially liberal on the death penalty. You cited, two cases to support your argument, Missouri v. Johnson and Missouri v. Kinder. In describing the Kinder case, you said Justice White "wrote a dissent saying that the case was contaminated by a racial bias of the trial judge because the trial judge had indicated that he opposed affirmative action and had switched parties based on that." In fact, you claimed three separate times that I know of - twice in floor statements and once in a "Dear Colleague" letter - that the only reason White dissented in the Kinder case was the judge's stance on affirmative action.

My first question is, did you read Ronnie White's dissent in the Kinder case before you made your statement? Since?

I have reviewed the decisions rendered in the Kinder case.

Q. The fact is that contrary to your statements, in his Kinder dissent, Justice White specifically argued that the trial judge's comments on affirmative action programs are "irrelevant to the issue of bias." In fact what Justice White objected to - and here I quote directly from the dissent - was:

"the pernicious racial stereotype which is also expressed in the press release. The slur is not ambiguous or complex (nor, unfortunately, original): 'While minorities need to be represented . . . I believe the time has come for us to place much more emphasis and concern on the hard-working taxpayers in this country. . . .' No honest reading of this sentence can show that it says anything other than what it says: that minorities are not hard-working taxpayers."

Again, in describing the Kinder case, you said Justice White "wrote a dissent saying that the case was contaminated by a racial bias of the trial judge because the trial judge had indicated that he opposed affirmative action and had switched parties based on that."

Given Mr. White's explicit statement that he considered the trial judge's views on affirmative action irrelevant to the issue of bias, would describe your repeated representation of Ronnie White's views as fair?

I would begin by noting that the majority of the court in Kinder stated that "[i]n context, the statements merely express the trial judge's satisfaction with affirmative action and government entitlement programs." (942 S.W.2d at 321) In the Kinder case, the defendant did not allege any actual unfairness or error in any of the trial judge's actions based on alleged bias, and an independent reviewing court immediately after the trial, as well as the Missouri Supreme Court, found no such unfairness or error based on bias. In fact, Judge White did not identify any ruling or error influenced by any alleged bias. In his sole dissent, Judge White stated that "actual fairness" of a trial is "not sufficient" to satisfy the Constitution. Judges undoubtedly should be held to a higher standard to avoid the appearance of bias, and a good case can be made that the trial judge in Kinder should have been censured. But I fully believe that to craft a rule that voids a trial with no demonstrable error, and with clear evidence of guilt of a brutal crime, as Judge White would have in this case, is fundamentally wrong. This was the basis for my position on Judge White with respect to the Kinder case. I continue to believe that that criticism was fair.

Q. You have consistently stated that the only possible exceptions you would accept to an otherwise complete ban on abortion would be the very life of the mother herself. Let me ask you now to expand upon those statements.

Do you believe that abortion is appropriate in cases where the health of the mother is so endangered that she is likely to face serious, permanent damage to her health?

My personal views on abortion are well known. But as I have explained, I understand the difference between the role of a policy advocate and the role of a law enforcer. As Attorney General, I will fully and faithfully enforce all federal laws on this issue.

Q. Are there any circumstances, beyond the likelihood of the actual death of the mother, that health should be a consideration in allowing an abortion, in your opinion?

Please see the answer above.

Q. If confirmed as Attorney General, you would likely have a great deal of influence over who President Bush would nominate to all levels of the federal judiciary, including the Supreme Court itself.

If President Bush were to ask you for names of possible Supreme Court nominees, would you consider suggesting a pro-choice nominee, assuming that the nominee was otherwise qualified?

Yes. As President Bush has made clear, he will have no litmus test for judicial nominations. As Attorney General, I will fully support the President's standard, and will not employ any litmus tests with respect to any role I might have in those nominations. I would note that I supported 218 out of 230 Clinton judicial nominees, and I assume some, if not most of them, were pro-choice.

Q. If the President nominated a pro-choice individual for a vacancy on the Supreme Court, with or without consulting you, would you support that nominee if otherwise qualified?

Yes. As President Bush has made clear, he will have no litmus test for judicial nominations. As Attorney General, I will fully support the President's standard, and will not employ any litmus tests with respect to any role I might have in those nominations.

Q. In 1998, you stated that "[t]hroughout my life, my personal conviction and public record is that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed and should be protected fully by the Fourteenth Amendment."

In 1981 you testified similarly before the Senate Subcommittee on Separation of Powers in support of "A Bill to Provide that Human Life Shall Be Deemed to Exist from Conception," as follows: "[W]e are urging the courts in any number of cases that they are considering to decide that equal protection does in fact belong to unborn children." You further stated that "we would add fetuses that they currently characterize as nonpersons to the class of individuals that is protected by the Constitution."

And also on this point, you co-sponsored a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment codifying your belief that an unborn child is entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.

Is it your contention that a fetus is or should be considered a "person" under the 14th Amendment?

Your summary of my record as an advocate appears to be fair and accurate. Certainly a significant number of complicated issues are associated with these proposals. The resolution of such issues is reserved to the domain of policy-makers, not law enforcers. As I said at the hearing, I understand the difference between the role of a policy advocate and one who must enforce the law. I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land.

Q. What are the jurisprudential ramifications of this position?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. Are you aware of any Supreme Court ruling supporting your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment with respect to fetuses?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. Will you advocate adoption of your understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment before the U.S. Supreme Court?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. Under your theory, must a legal hearing be held with respect to the due process rights of the fetus before an abortion may be performed?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. What other due process rights does a fetus have in your view?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. Does the fetus have due process rights regarding familial property distribution? Inheritance?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. Do due process rights attach at the point of fertilization of the egg?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. Presumably then, any doctor who performs an abortion under your interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment commits murder, is that correct?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. Does that make the woman an accessory to murder?

Please refer to the answer above.

Q. According to the Institute of Medicine, access to contraceptive services is central to improving women's overall health and reducing unintended pregnancy and, therefore, the need for abortion. Family planning experts also have highlighted the crucial role that contraceptives play in reducing the rate of abortion, particularly for teenagers. One recent report indicated that publicly funded contraceptive services annually prevent 1.3 million unintended pregnancies, which would result in 533,800 births and 632,300 abortions.

Yet in 1986, as Governor of Missouri, you signed a bill that stated, among other things, that life begins at "conception," defined to mean at fertilization. And in 1998, you sponsored a Constitutional amendment to ban abortions that would also put the beginning of life at fertilization.

Am I correct in concluding that such a broad definition of conception would have the effect of outlawing the most common forms of contraception, including the birth control pill and the IUD?

Proposals I supported as a Governor or legislator have no bearing on my role as Attorney General. As Attorney General, I would have no authority to vote upon legislation or constitutional amendments. As Attorney General, I will enforce the laws as passed by Congress and signed by the President.

Q. In January of 1999, a federal jury ordered two anti-abortion groups and 12 individuals to pay over $107 million to Planned Parenthood of Columbia/Willamette, the Portland Feminist Women's Health Center, and several physicians, after finding that the "Nuremberg Files" web site, a "Deadly Dozen" poster, and a "wanted" poster constituted true threats not protected under the First Amendment.

The Nuremberg Files web site was designed to collect information to use against abortion providers, clinic staff, law enforcement officers, judges, and politicians in future trials for their "crimes against humanity." The site sought and listed personal information such as photos of the individuals, their families, their friends, their houses, and their cars; driving records; license plate numbers; and names and birth dates of the individuals and their family members.

The legend that accompanied this list of names contained simulated body parts and dripping blood. This legend indicated the health status of each name - black font for "working"; grayed-out name for "wounded"; and strikethrough for those on the lists who were dead. Within hours of the assassination of Buffalo abortion provider Dr. Barnett Slepian, a line appeared through his name.

It is my understanding that this case is now on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and may be destined for review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

As Attorney General, would you concur that the activities by the defendants in this case violate FACE, or would you use your position to try to limit the scope of FACE?

If confirmed, I will fully enforce FACE. I believe that it would be imprudent for me to comment on a pending case or make any decision with respect to the case to which you refer, as well as any other case, until fully reviewing the facts and law. I look forward to the opportunity to conduct such a review of this and other cases.

Q. The Department of Justice reviews all petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court and often recommends that the Supreme Court either grants or denies certiorari in any particular case. When the Solicitor General says that a decision warrants or does not warrant attention, those views are given great consideration. So, indeed, DOJ could well become involved in this case at the certiorari stage or by filing an amicus brief.

Should this case be appealed to the Supreme Court and you are confirmed as Attorney General, what recommendation would you direct your Solicitor General to make regarding the outcome of the case?

Any decision that I make with respect to the case to which you refer, as well as any other case, will be made only after fully reviewing the facts and law applicable to that case. I look forward to the opportunity to conduct such a review of this and other cases.

Q. In more general terms, would you continue to support the use of Attorney General powers to protect providers and patients in cases that come before the court?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will use the powers of the Attorney General to enforce the federal law protections of all citizens fully and fairly, including those of providers and patients.

Q. Let me now ask you a question about the FACE Act, and what that Act covers.

In Section 3(e) of the Act, the term "interfere with" means "to restrict a person's freedom of movement." Would you support any alteration of that definition?

It is Congress's prerogative to draft and enact legislation, including the definition of terms appearing in legislation. Should the Congress choose to do so with respect to the FACE Act, I will fully and fairly enforce such alteration.

Q. Also in Section 3(e), "intimidate" means "to place a person in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm to him or herself or another." Would you support any alteration in that definition?

It is Congress's prerogative to draft and enact legislation, including the definition of terms appearing in legislation. Should the Congress choose to do so with respect to the FACE Act, I will fully and fairly enforce such alteration.

Q. In Section 3(c), FACE defines "physical obstruction" as "rendering impassible ingress to or egress from a facility that provides reproductive health services . . . or rendering passage to or from such a facility . . . unreasonably difficult or hazardous." Would you support any alteration in that definition?

It is Congress's prerogative to draft and enact legislation, including the definition of terms appearing in legislation. Should the Congress choose to do so with respect to the FACE Act, I will fully and fairly enforce such alteration.

Q. Courts have interpreted FACE as not providing a civil remedy to so-called "sidewalk counselors." Do you disagree with that interpretation? Do you think that the definition of reproductive health services should be expanded so as to include "sidewalk counselors"?

Just as it is Congress's prerogative to draft and enact legislation, it is the role of the courts to interpret such legislation. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will fully abide by federal court decisions interpreting the FACE Act. Likewise, should Congress choose to amend the act, I will fully and fairly enforce such amendment.

Q. As a Senator on this Committee, you voted against Senator Schumer's amendment to the bankruptcy bill that would prevent persons who commit acts of violence or harassment at reproductive health care facilities from using bankruptcy proceedings to avoid paying the damages, court fines, penalties, and legal fees levied against them as a result of their illegal activities.

I understand that the floor vote may have had something to do with the Presidential election process, and may not have reflected the true views of all who voted for it. So to make the record clear, will you commit to us today that you will continue to support, and indeed vote for, legislation or amendments to prevent perpetrators of clinic violence and obstruction from using bankruptcy proceedings to discharge their related debts?

My reasons for opposing the amendment in committee dealt with the procedural and timing implications of the amendment to final passage of the bankruptcy bill. I supported Senator Schumer's amendment on the floor based on substantive policy considerations and supported final passage of the bill that included the provision.

Q. In the past, when a clinic has been under siege and local law enforcement have been unwilling or unable to respond, the Task Force Against Reproductive Health Care Providers has responded by using federal law enforcement (i.e. U.S. Marshals) to protect clinics, providers and patients.

If local law enforcement does not respond in such a situation, would you support using federal law enforcement to protect the clinic, providers and patients?

If confirmed, I will use the powers of the Attorney General's office to protect the federal rights of all Americans, including the rights of clinics, providers, and patients.

Q. It is my understanding that as of last count, there were 53 investigations open relating to FACE, including six arsons, five bombings, and two shootings, one of which was fatal.

Would the Department of Justice under your authority pursue these cases, and if so, how?

If confirmed, I will fully enforce the FACE Act, including with respect to any pending investigations. I will be particularly vigilant in pursuing crimes of violence, such as the ones that you reference. I am not, however, familiar with the details of the cases that you cite, and so cannot comment on them in particular.

Q. If, during your tenure as Attorney General, the amount and severity of violence against health care providers and/or facilities increases over current levels, what additional steps would you take to enforce the laws that protect them?

I will fully enforce the FACE Act. If current enforcement levels prove insufficient to the need, then I will not hesitate to devote significant additional resources to enforcing FACE.

Q. In several high-profile cases in recent memory, the Justice Department has pursued civil rights cases against perpetrators of hate crimes when the state laws in question have been inadequate to address those crimes.

In fact, throughout our nation's history, some of the most vulnerable victims have relied on the Department of Justice to intervene and ensure that justice is done.

As Attorney General, would you take an equally active role in these types of cases?

If confirmed, I will fully and fairly enforce current federal law to ensure that conduct which violates the civil rights laws is fully prosecuted. I will also fully enforce any additional hate crimes legislation that Congress chooses to enact.

Q. In 1988, you declined to sign the Commission on Minority Participation in Education and American Life, which concluded that the nation was slipping it its efforts to achieve equal opportunity for minorities. I am concerned about the impression left behind by your refusal to sign the report. A reasonable person might presume that it meant that you were satisfied with the progress that has been made on these issues.

Could you explain your reason for not signing the Commission report? Specifically, what were your chief concerns about the report?

A press release at the time expressed my concerns as follows:

"Governor Ashcroft agreed to serve on the Commission on Minority Participation in Education and American Life because of his deep concern with achieving an environment of equal opportunity for all Americans including total access and a comprehensive open door to attaining educational excellence. He joins the other members of the Commission in these purposes and goals, as well as their view that education is key to the achievement of equal opportunity.

"He could not, however, fully subscribe to the Commission's final report because of its inordinate emphasis on federal government programs as compared to the crucial initiatives of individuals, states, and localities. He further believes that the report's generalizations about setbacks in progress are overly broad and counterproductive in failing to recognize and examine important areas of progress experienced during the last three to four years. Instead of documenting and describing reasons behind the successes of many minority groups, the report focuses almost exclusively on shortcomings and failures. Further, the report fails to draw on research that distinguishes between effective and ineffective programs in helping all Americans achieve success. He especially objected to the precipitous process for finalizing the report, which provided little or no opportunity for the Commission's consideration of these and other concerns about its final draft."

Q. To what extent do you believe racial and gender disparities persist in the workplace and in education?

I believe that discrimination is a real and persistent problem, that there is still much work to be done, and that the Department of Justice has a special charge and solemn responsibility to enforce our nation's civil rights laws vigorously.

Q. What types of efforts or programs - whether at the federal, state or private sector levels - would you find constitutionally acceptable in ensuring equal opportunities for minorities and women in employment and education?

Many efforts and programs can be undertaken in this regard consistent with the Constitution. For example, I believe that the affirmative access programs that President Bush has described are fully consistent with the Constitution.

Q. Senator Ashcroft, in a 1998 interview in Southern Partisan magazine, you were asked to give your views about the International Criminal Court, which has been established to punish war crimes like genocide. You responded, and I quote:

"It's an outrage. It has the potential of subjecting American citizens (at least for their actions abroad at home) to vague criminal charges that would spring from so-called 'crimes against humanity.' Some of the things they're listing as crimes against humanity are 'enforced pregnancies.' There are lots of people who wonder if the culture would decide not to make abortion available would that mean that they were 'enforcing a pregnancy'? For heaven's sake, that would make withholding of an abortion a crime against humanity when many Americans believe that providing an abortion is a crime against humanity."

Let me now read the International Criminal Court treaty's definition for a forced pregnancy:

"Forced pregnancy means the unlawful confinement, of a woman, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy."

In other words, the ICC treaty provisions refers specifically to a systematic policy of imprisoning women, raping them, and forcing them to carry the fetus to term as part of a policy of ethnic cleansing and to change the ethnicity of a population. Moreover, the provision explicitly states that it does not apply to domestic pregnancy laws.

This does not seem all that vague to me, nor does it seem to suggest the conclusions or scenario that you raised.

How did you come up with your interpretation of this provision?

I believe if my statement is reviewed carefully, it does not state a position but asks a question about that provision. I do not recall reviewing the specific provision you reference, but it appears to answer the question I posed in my statement.

Q. Do you believe that enforced pregnancy, as defined in the ICC Treaty, should not be a crime?

I believe that as defined in your question, such conduct would constitute a heinous and horrible crime.

Q. When the Senate reconvenes next week, I will be reintroducing the "Military Sniper Weapon Regulation Act." This legislation would place 50-caliber sniper rifles under the "National Firearms Act," the same regulatory scheme already governing machine guns and other powerful weaponry.

These powerful guns weigh as much as 28 pounds, and enable a single shooter to destroy enemy jeeps, tanks, personnel carriers, bunkers, fuel stations and even communication centers. The weapons are deadly accurate up to 2,000 yards, and "effective" up to 7,500 yards - more than four miles. In fact, many ranges used for target practice do not even have enough safety features to accommodate these guns. They are just too powerful.

Current law classifies 50-caliber guns as "long guns," subject to the least government regulation for any firearm. My bill would reclassify 50-caliber guns under the National Firearms Act, which imposes stricter standards on powerful and destructive weapons. For instance, once this bill passes, 50-caliber guns must be purchased through a licensed dealer, with an accompanying background check. Prospective purchasers will need to provide fingerprints and fill out a transfer application, and will undergo a delay while the FBI makes sure that the applicant meets federal qualifications for obtaining the firearm.

Do you believe that regulating firearms under the National Firearms Act is constitutional?

To my knowledge, there has never been a successful challenge to the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act. As with all federal legislation, I would approach it with a presumption of constitutionality, and would defend it so long as a good faith and conscientious basis existed for doing so.

Q. Would you support this bill?

I have not had an opportunity to review the bill, but look forward to doing so in the near future and to working with you on this subject.

Q. You stated during these confirmation hearings that your opposition to Jim Hormel stemmed from your review of the "totality of the record." Yet it is my understanding that when repeatedly contacted by Jim Hormel - both in writing and by phone calls - to discuss his nomination, you did nothing to schedule a time to discuss any concerns or reservations you may have had. You did not attend his hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In fact, the only record that existed prior to your vote against Mr. Hormel was the testimony presented during Mr. Hormel's confirmation hearing and earlier testimony that was before the Senate prior to his unanimous confirmation by the Senate to his position at the United Nations.

Please specifically describe the record on which you based your opposition.

Based on the totality of Mr. Hormel's record of advocacy, I did not believe that he would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe.

Q. You stated that you "had known Mr. Hormel for a long time." Yet, according to Mr. Hormel, you and he have never had a personal or professional relationship and Ambassador Hormel believes with reasonable certainty that you and he have not seen each other or spoken since 1967.

Why wouldn't you meet with Jim Hormel again to discuss his nomination as ambassador?

I opposed the confirmation of Ambassador Hormel in Committee. That was the extent of the action I took concerning his nomination. Given the pressing demands of fulfilling the responsibilities of a U.S. Senator, there were other interests in the Senate upon which I was primarily focused.

Q. During your time in the Senate, how many times did you refuse a request to meet with an executive nominee?

During my tenure in the Senate, many individuals were nominated to office by the President. I was able to meet with some, but not all, of these individuals. I am unable to recall precisely how many nominees I did or did not interview, but Ambassador Hormel is not the only nominee for whom I could not accommodate a personal visit.

Q. Again, you said that your opposition to Jim Hormel was based in your review of the "totality" of his record. Yet, three months prior to your strong opposition to his appointment as Ambassador to Luxembourg, you did not object to the unanimous consent of his Senate approval as Alternate Representative of the U.S. delegation to the UN General Assembly.

In the intervening months, what was it about Ambassador Hormel's record that changed your opinion that he was fit to serve the United States?

Like many other Senators, the standard that I applied for presidential nominees varied depending upon the office for which the nominee was nominated. I thus believed that while Mr. Hormel might serve adequately as an Alternate Delegate to the United Nations General Assembly, he would not, based on the totality of his record, have been an appropriate person to serve as Ambassador to Luxembourg.

Q. In 1999, the INS took into its custody 4,607 children who came to the U.S. unaccompanied by a parent or adult guardian. More than 2,000 of these children are held in jails and youth detention centers across the country, even though the overwhelming majority of these children (80 percent) have committed no crime. The INS continues to pursue this policy remain in effect seven years after the INS agreed to hold children in the "least restrictive setting appropriate for the minor's age and special needs." I have been appalled, quite frankly, by the way many unaccompanied alien children have been treated by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. This treatment has included the shackling and handcuffing of children who are no threat to themselves or others, long periods of confinements in inappropriate penal facilities, pressuring children to voluntarily depart the country without their having access to counsel, and inadequate avenues for humanitarian relief when that relief might be appropriate.

Would you agree that Congress and the Administration should take comprehensive steps to correct these problems?

The President has proposed comprehensive reform of the INS. I fully support his position on this matter. With regard to the matters enumerated in your question which would be under my authority as Attorney General, I certainly will review them. I look forward to working with you to correct any improper treatment which may take place.

Q. Late in the last Congress, I introduced S. 3117, the "Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2000," which sought to change the manner in which unaccompanied alien children are treated by immigration authorities by addressing these issues, and more. I plan to reintroduce this bill in this Congress. My legislation would create a special Office of Children's Services within the Department of Justice, and the Office would be responsible for coordinating and implementing the law to ensure that unaccompanied alien children are treated appropriately by our government.

What are your views on the wisdom and morality of confining children who have not committed any crimes in prison or prison-like facilities?

I believe that children taken into custody by the federal government, including unaccompanied alien children, should be treated with the utmost care and compassion.

Q. This issue is an important priority to me, and I really want to have your commitment to work closely with me in addressing the treatment of children in our immigration system. Can I get your support?

I pledge that if confirmed, I will work closely with you to ensure that all children in our immigration system are treated with the utmost care and compassion.

Q. Millions of law-abiding citizens, residents, immigrants, and businesses pay fees to the INS each year to have their applications and petitions for immigration benefits adjudicated in a timely manner. Unfortunately, our constituents increasingly have been faced with extraordinary delays and incompetence. And this has had a dramatic effect on their lives and the lives of the people or companies that depend on them.

Last year, Congress enacted S. 2586, the "Immigration Services and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2000," legislation which I introduced in the Senate. This new law created an account within the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) specifically devoted to reducing the immigration backlogs, and improving the overall INS process and systems used to adjudicate these important services. Under the new law, funds in the account are to be available across fiscal years, and they are to be used for such purposes as providing additional personnel, fingerprinting equipment, improved records management, and other necessary equipment and expenses. In addition to creating the account and authorizing such sums as necessary to fund it, my legislation requires an annual report to Congress on the top 10 areas that have the worst immigration backlogs. It also requires the INS to explain why backlogs persist in these areas and what the agency is doing to fix them. The INS must also report on what additional resources are needed to meet Congress's mandate that backlogs be eliminated and that processing times are reduced to an acceptable time frame.

During his campaign, President-elect Bush called for the expenditure of $500 million over five years to reduce the immigration backlog. This proposal was similar to my bill, which has now become law. The President-elect will have to submit his fiscal year 2002 budget to Congress in the coming weeks.

If confirmed as Attorney General, will you work to include in the President's budget additional funding for reducing the backlog in immigration benefits adjudications?

If confirmed, I will work diligently to support the President's agenda in this area.

Q. Can we count on your support for the provision of directly appropriated funds for reducing the backlog in immigration benefits adjudications, along the lines of my proposal and the President-elect's proposal, to supplement the funds that are derived from the fee accounts?

As mentioned above, if confirmed, I will work diligently to support the President's agenda in this area.

Q. Can we count on your support for insisting that appropriated funds for backlog reduction be placed into the Immigration Services Improvement and Infrastructure Account, as established by the Act, rather than in integrate those funds within the general INS accounts?

As mentioned above, if confirmed, I will work diligently to support the President's agenda in this area.

Q. Even when Congress appropriates funds to the INS, management problems within the agency have affected the efficient use of these funds. What steps will you take to ensure that these funds are used as intended and will result in the efficient and timely processing of immigrant petitions and naturalization applications?

It is important that funds intended for a specific use be devoted to that use. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will work to ensure that appropriated funds are used as intended, and deployed to promote efficient and timely processing of immigrant petitions and naturalization applications. I will coordinate closely with all responsible officials in the INS.

Q. The backlog reduction law requires that the INS make a number of reports to Congress on its efforts to reduce the backlog in immigration benefits adjudication. The first of these reports is due on January 17, 2001. As you know from your service in the Senate, the INS has not been especially timely over the years in submitting reports that Congress has requested. As the author of this particular piece of legislation, and as a senator representing a large constituency that depends on the INS to perform its Service functions in a timely and efficient manner, I am going to take a special interest in making sure that the reports and goals required by this bill are adhered to.

Will you designate someone on your staff to work with my staff to ensure that these reports are done on a timely basis and that the reduction in these intolerable backlogs are among the highest priorities, not only of the INS, but of the Department of Justice itself?

I pledge to you that if confirmed, I will work closely with you to help ensure that the INS fulfills its responsibilities under applicable law, and, in particular, its obligation to file timely reports pursuant to the backlog reduction law. I will make this a priority in both the INS and the Department of Justice.

Q. Both the General Accounting Office and the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform called for significant management reforms at the INS. In 1991, the GAO issued an extensive report identifying severe management problems across the agency. Among other things, the GAO found INS:

• Lacked clear priorities;
• Lacked management control over regional commissioners;
• Had poor internal communications and outdated policies;
• Did not take workload into account when allocating resources - which contributed to the high backlog of applications; and
• Had unreliable financial information and thus inadequate budget monitoring.

The U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform found that despite increases in funding and authority, the current federal immigration structure leads to "mission overload," resulting in ineffective management of the four core functions of our immigration system: border and interior enforcement; enforcement of immigration-related employment standards; adjudication of immigration and naturalization applications; and consolidation of administrative appeals. According to the Commission, "mission overload" results from the fact that the agency charged with implementing our immigration laws have so many responsibilities that they are unable to manage all of them effectively. And, with an immigration landscape that is growing in complexity and size, no one agency could have the capacity to effectively manage every aspect of immigration policy imaginable. I am a strong supporter of the reform bill proposed in the Senate in the 106th Congress, which would separate the Service into bureaus: one for Enforcement and one for Service. An Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs would oversee both bureaus. I would like to count on your support for making this a priority for the Justice Department.

If you are confirmed, what immediate reforms would you make to the agency?

The President has proposed a comprehensive reform of the Immigration and Naturalization Service to help change its character and to make America more welcoming to new immigrants. Currently, for example, the INS takes 3-5 years or more simply to process an immigration application. There is no justification for processing to take 3-5 years; an INS properly focused on service would move much faster. The President believes every INS application should be fully processed within 180 days of submission. To meet this six-month standard, and to introduce a fundamental shift in the approach of the INS, the President will: (1) Support legislation to divide the INS into two separate agencies: one to deal with the enforcement components of border protection and interior enforcement, and another to deal with the service components of naturalization. Both agencies will be headed by an Associate Attorney General for Immigration Affairs, who will supervise both functions, and make sure that the agencies are taking consistent legal and policy approaches. (2) Support a comprehensive set of civil-service reforms, ways to make government more responsive to its customers. He will follow the same principles with the INS. In particular, he will introduce performance incentives for employees to process cases quickly, and make customer satisfaction a priority. (3) Propose an additional $500 million over five years to fund new personnel and increased employee incentives to provide quality service to all legal immigrants. (4) Support changes in the INS policy so that spouses and minor children of legal permanent residents are allowed to apply for visitor visas while their immigration applications are pending. He will reverse the presumption that such family members will violate their terms of admission, and will encourage family reunification for legal immigrants. If confirmed, I will fully support the President's agenda in this area.

Q. If your approach would differ from the Senate bill, please explain the reforms you would propose.

I believe that my answer to the preceding question outlines the President's approach in this area, which I would fully support.

ADDITIONAL IMMIGRATION QUESTIONS

Q. Worksite Enforcement. We can all agree that we have a large number of unlawful migrants here, and they come because employers offer them work opportunities. If you are interested in controlling illegal immigration, what policies would you put in place to enforce the immigration laws at the work place?

If confirmed, I would fully and fairly enforce all of the laws relating to immigration - both legal and illegal. By enforcing such laws vigorously, we can, I believe, both control illegal immigration and promote the interests of those who are in this country lawfully.

Q. Alien Smuggling and Trafficking. I am very concerned about the significant increase in organized trafficking. [GAO] As you may know, Congress passed - [sic] What mechanisms will you put in place to both deter traffickers and assist the victims of trafficking?

No human being should be forced to suffer the indignity of being a victim of human trafficking. I will vigorously enforce all laws enacted by Congress in this area to combat this abhorrent practice.

ANTITRUST - MCI WORLDCOM/SPRINT

Q. A little more than a year ago, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the competitive implications of the then-pending merger between MCI WorldCom and Sprint, a merger which was ultimately abandoned when the Justice Department opposed it. The merger would have combined the second and third largest long distance phone companies and would have resulted in two companies capturing nearly 80 percent of the long distance market. Despite these large market shares, you said that "I am strongly inclined to support the proposed merger."

While you acknowledged that the competitive implications of the merger needed to be examined, they were secondary to "my largest concern" - "the jobs of the hard working and talented people of the State of Missouri." Finally, you argued that in examining this merger, "the current landscape is not the landscape to be considered - instead it should be analyzed based on the possible future of the marketplace."

Are your statements at the MCI WorldCom/Sprint merger hearings indicative of the approach you believe the Justice Department's Antitrust Division should take when reviewing mergers? Under the Department's Merger Guidelines, the competitive implications of the proposed merger are paramount and the merger is analyzed with regard to the current state of the marketplace. Would you make any changes to the Antitrust Division's standards for reviewing mergers such as paying more attention to factors other than the merger's likely effects on competition?

Do you think the Justice Department was mistaken to oppose the now abandoned MCI WorldCom/Sprint merger? If yes, why? Should we be worried when a merger leads to such high concentration as this one - which would have resulted in two companies controlling nearly 80% of the market - could lead to higher prices for consumers?

In the area of antitrust enforcement, the competitive implications of any proposed merger are of paramount importance. Thus, I would approach any proposed merger with an eye towards ensuring open competition in the marketplace. I would be open to considering modifications to the Antitrust Division's standards for reviewing mergers, but would do so in consultation with the antitrust experts in the Department of Justice. With respect to the MCI WorldCom/Sprint merger in particular, I believe it would be imprudent to comment on the specifics of this transaction, or any transaction, without the benefit of the full knowledge of the Antitrust Division.

ANTITRUST - SHERMAN ACT

Q. The fundamental antitrust law - the Sherman Act - was enacted more than a hundred years ago. For more than a century, it has protected the principles we hold most important - competition, consumer choice, fairness, and equality.

The antitrust laws are significant because they ensure that competition among businesses of any size will be fair and that consumers will pay low prices for all sorts of goods and services. And these laws have a proud tradition of being supported in a non-partisan manner - they've been vigorously enforced over the years by both Republicans and Democrats.

What role do you think antitrust laws have had in shaping our economy and preserving competition?

How should we use antitrust laws to protect against consolidation of economic power - to make sure that consumers aren't charged high prices by large companies that have swallowed up their competition?

The antitrust laws have been a vital part of ensuring a free and open marketplace in this country and, in my view, should continue to serve this role. By ensuring that any proposed merger promotes competition, and that an undue consolidation of monopolistic power does not accrue in the hands of a single business entity, I would help ensure the existence of free and open markets. This, in turn, would help ensure that consumers are not charged prices above free market levels.

ANTITRUST - ENFORCEMENT

Q. In the last few years, the Antitrust Division has been very active in antitrust enforcement, bringing prominent cases, such as the Microsoft case, and challenging many large mergers, such as MCI WorldCom/Sprint and Lockheed Martin/Northrup Grumman, to name a few.

How would you evaluate the performance of the Justice Department in dealing with the MCI WorldCom/Sprint merger and the Lockheed Martin/Northrup Grumman merger? Do you believe that the Antitrust Division has been appropriately enforcing our nation's antitrust laws? Is there any change in approach or philosophy of antitrust enforcement we can expect should you be confirmed as Attorney General?

I believe that it would be imprudent to comment on how the Justice Department has dealt with the MCI WorldCom/Sprint and the Lockheed Martin/Northrup mergers in particular, as I have not had the benefit of the Antitrust Division's full learning on these matters. For the same reason, it would be imprudent for me to comment upon the Antitrust Division's enforcement of the antitrust laws in any particular cases. With respect to the philosophy of antitrust enforcement that I would follow should I be confirmed as Attorney General, I can assure you that I will fully enforce the antitrust laws to help ensure free and open competition in the marketplace.

ANTITRUST - FUTURE OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS

Q. Some have argued that our nation's antitrust laws, many written over a hundred years ago, are outmoded and need to be updated before they can be applied to today's high-tech industries. Others believe that the antitrust laws apply equally well to modern economic problems and high-tech industries as they did to problems of economic concentration in the railroad, oil and other industries when they were first written.

What is your view? Do you think our antitrust laws are outmoded and in need of revision?

The antitrust laws have proven to be flexible enough to adopt to many new situations. That being said, one should always be open to the possibility that improvements could be made, particularly where fundamental economic shifts have occurred. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will seek the advice of experts in this field, including those in the Antitrust Division, before making any determination as to whether are antitrust laws are in need of any revision.

ANTITRUST - EUROPEAN REVIEW

Q. Another issue that has arisen in the last few years relates to European review of mergers involving American companies, especially given the increasing globalization of the world's economy and the increasing numbers of mergers of American companies that affect the European market. In many cases, because of their different time limits, European merger authorities reach decisions on these mergers before the U.S. antitrust authorities. This can result in the European Union deciding to block a merger before the Justice Department has concluded its review. In addition, there have been concerns raised that, in some instances, the EU may have been motivated by protectionist sentiments, and may have scrutinized mergers involving American companies more strictly than those of European companies.

What's your view of these issues? Do you believe that European antitrust authorities are properly scrutinizing mergers and other antitrust issues involving American companies? And do you think that the Antitrust Division can take steps to better harmonize its antitrust review with the European antitrust authorities?

I believe that in an increasingly global economy, it is important, to the extent practicable, for different nations to enforce their antitrust laws consistently to promote a free and open marketplace. I believe that it would be imprudent for me to comment on how European antitrust authorities are addressing antitrust issues as they relate to American companies without the full learning of the experts in the Antitrust Division. I assure you that here, as in all other areas, if confirmed as Attorney General, I will take all appropriate action in full consultation with the experts in the field, and act so as to promote free and open markets. I can further assure you that I will fully consult the antitrust experts, including those in the Antitrust Division, before determining what steps may be appropriate to enhance consistency between European and American antitrust review. Finally, in evaluating candidates for the position of Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, in conjunction with the President, I would ensure the candidate had the proper diplomatic skills to work effectively and cooperatively with his or her counterpart in Brussels.

ANTITRUST - CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT

Q. We should avoid sharp swings in antitrust enforcement. In the past, it has appeared that antitrust enforcement has significantly changed when a new administration takes office, particularly a transition involving a change of political parties. For example, it appears that the Antitrust Division during the Reagan/Bush years took a much more hands-off approach to merger enforcement than the Antitrust Division during the Clinton administration.

Changes in the enforcement of the antitrust laws dramatically affect the business community and the financial markets. Businesses need to be able to expect a consistent basic level of antitrust enforcement from the government regardless which party is in power.

What will you do to ensure continuity, stability and predictability of law in antitrust enforcement as the government transfers to a new Administration? And, what is the basic level of antitrust enforcement that everyone should be able to expect from the Justice Department regardless of party?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will vigorously enforce the antitrust laws to ensure a free and open marketplace. This is both a floor and a ceiling: Wherever appropriate, the law will be enforced. This should provide the consumers and the business community with the assurance of continuity that they need as to future antitrust enforcement.

ANTITRUST - AGRICULTURE

Q. Turning to agriculture, many family farmers believe that consolidation among large agribusiness firms have made it increasingly difficult to survive, as they have little bargaining power with respect to the large agribusiness conglomerates.

What is your view - have the antitrust laws been adequately enforced with respect to agriculture? And will you assure us that enforcement of antitrust laws in the agricultural sector of the economy will be a priority of your Justice Department?

The family farm is an American institution, and one which is fully protected by America's antitrust laws. Indeed, as you know, the antitrust laws include special protections for farmers. Coming from Missouri, I am well aware of the difficulties that farmers face as a result of consolidations and mergers. My legislative record on this matter is clear. As a Senator, I sponsored legislation that would have enhanced the understanding of the Antitrust Division on agricultural issues. This question, however, goes more to the question of enforcement. And on this question, I assure you that I will fully enforce the antitrust laws in the area of agriculture to help ensure that we have a competitive market for agriculture.

CRIME PREVENTION - USE OF FEDERAL MONEY

Q. Recently, my office surveyed all of the sheriffs and police chiefs in Wisconsin on a variety of law enforcement issues. The survey yielded some very helpful insights into what the officers on the front lines need from the federal government. Local authorities were almost unanimous in their belief that the federal government needs to increase its support for crime prevention programs. On average, the police in my state support spending at least one-third of federal money specifically on prevention.

Can you detail your plan for crime prevention programs generally and pledge to increase the resources required to be used for crime prevention programs for local police chiefs?

As a former governor, President Bush has explained his understanding that state and local authorities are largely responsible for combating violent crime. He believes the Federal government's role in criminal justice is primarily international and multi-jurisdictional, including tough policies against organized crime, drug cartels, and international terrorism. In addition to this role, the President believes the Federal government can do more to improve our criminal justice system:

1. Enforce federal gun laws. The President wishes to give prosecutors the resources they need to aggressively enforce our gun laws and will provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Texas Exile and Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia.

2. Develop and promote successful criminal justice initiatives, such as the abolition of parole and truth in sentencing in the federal system.

3. Support state and local law enforcement with federal funding, technical assistance where needed, and a national database to help state and local police identify, track, and arrest fugitives who move across jurisdictional lines and to prosecute serious hate crimes where local jurisdictions lack the resources to do so.

4. Promote federal and state partnerships to develop advanced technology to help police work both smarter and more efficiently.

5. Combating terrorism. The President believes that, as a nation, we must have zero tolerance for terrorism.

In addition, the President is committed to giving local law enforcement greater authority over federal funds.

Should I be confirmed as Attorney General, I will work with both the President and the Congress to fully implement this agenda.

If this can be accomplished, local jurisdictions that want to direct resources to prevention will be free to do so, while police departments with different objectives can prioritize their funding accordingly.

HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION

Q. Shortly before declaring bankruptcy, the former Commissioner of baseball, Bowie Kuhn, moved to Florida and bought a $1 million mansion, effectively shielding the value of that home from his many creditors. While Kuhn was taking advantage of the loophole in Florida's bankruptcy law, creditors were preparing to seize his two homes in the New York area - a state that did not permit him to hide his money from his creditors.

To remedy this outrage in the bankruptcy laws, Senator Sessions and I offered an amendment to establish a federal homestead cap of $100,000. The amendment passed with your support by the overwhelming vote of 76-22. As you know, the U.S. government is a major creditor in these types of bankruptcies and the Justice Department is in charge of collecting. So, this loophole costs taxpayers money and frustrates the Justice Department's enforcement efforts.

Is there any greater fraud in bankruptcy law than the homestead exemption? Can you think of any reason that we should not make this change in the bankruptcy laws this year?

As you mentioned, I supported the amendment that you offered on this subject. Moreover, because, again as you mentioned, the United States government is a creditor in many bankruptcy actions, it is important to ensure that - while the bankruptcy laws allow debtors on hard times to make a fresh start - debtors do not abuse the bankruptcy laws to avoid paying money due the government and other creditors. Thus, if confirmed as Attorney General, I commit to you that I will fully enforce the bankruptcy laws to ensure that all creditors, including the United States government, receive their just due. Moreover, should Congress decide to alter the law in this area to, for example, eliminating the homestead exemption - as is its lawful prerogative - I fully commit to enforcing the law as amended.

CRIME PREVENTION - FEDERAL BUDGET FOR PREVENTION PROGRAMS

Q. For fiscal year 2001, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention will be funded at $141.7 million for prevention programs (defined to include mentoring, after-school programs, conflict resolution, drug and alcohol prevention, etc.). This is a dramatic increase from the last year of the Bush Administration when the budget was only $15.5 million.

These programs have been very successful at preventing crime and helping at-risk kids get on the right track. Will you pledge to continue this trend toward increased funding for these programs?

The President is fully committed to combating juvenile crime and providing sufficient funding to accomplish the task. Indeed, as Governor, he made this a top priority. Thus, in 1995, he called for and signed legislation overhauling Texas's outdated juvenile justice laws. The new laws restored responsibility and tough consequences for crimes committed by juveniles. As a result, juvenile crime is down 17 percent in Texas - the first decline in over a decade - and violent juvenile crime is down 44 percent. I commit to you that I will that I will fully work with the President and Congress to further the President's agenda in this very important area.

ENFORCING THE GUN LAWS

Q. You've been a vocal critic not only of new gun laws, but also of the Clinton administration's record on prosecuting gun crimes. For Fiscal Year 2001, the President included funding for 100 additional prosecutors and $75 million for state and local authorities to hire more prosecutors. Through a strategy that has increased local awareness of gun crime penalties with increased federal resources to prosecute those crimes, Operation Ceasefire in Milwaukee has led to a 17% decrease in gun homicides. Yet, our federal prosecutors warn me that an even greater focus on increased federal prosecutions of gun crimes will divert needed resources from other tasks unless more federal agents and prosecutors are funded.

How much more federal money and how many more federal and state prosecutors do you think are necessary to bring the number of prosecutions to an acceptable level? Will this be an emphasis of your tenure as Attorney General?

President Bush is fully committed to enforcing America's gun laws, which will be a priority in the Justice Department should I be confirmed as Attorney General. Towards that end, the President wishes to give prosecutors all the resources they need to enforce our gun laws aggressively, and will provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Texas Exile and Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia. I am fully committed to assisting the President in promoting his agenda in this and all other areas.

PRIVACY

Q. Last year on the Judiciary Committee, we explored the FBI's "Carnivore" system - an e-mail surveillance program designed to track and monitor a suspect's online communications. This is a powerful law enforcement tool - perhaps too powerful - and we must be sure that it is not misused. If, as we are now learning, "Carnivore" is able to capture all e-mail traffic channeled through an Internet Service Provider (ISP), then the fear of innocent civilians being subject to search without cause is justified. Such a "fishing expedition" wouldn't be right.

How important do you think it is that we protect the privacy rights of civilians, and how serious a threat to privacy would "Carnivore" be if it's misused or inadvertently "captures" information other than the suspect's?

The Internet has obviously grown to be a vibrant part of our modern economy. It is the Justice Department's responsibility to ensure that those who conduct research or business on line can do so in a safe, secure environment. At the same time, however, we must take care that the government does not become too heavy handed in its online law enforcement activities in order to protect the privacy rights of law-abiding citizens. As you know, when I was in the Senate, I convened hearings on the importance of respecting privacy rights in the digital age. If confirmed, I will conduct a thorough review of Carnivore and its technical capabilities, and work closely with law enforcement to ensure that adequate measures are taken to secure personal privacy before the program is deployed. I would look forward to working with you to ensure that a proper balance is struck in this respect.

CRIME PREVENTION/ENFORCEMENT - PROACTIVE APPROACH

Q. Starting at the end of the Bush Administration and increasing dramatically during the Clinton years, our United States Attorneys evolved from offices focused purely on prosecuting crime to offices at the center of proactive community coalitions designed to prevent crime. In Milwaukee, for example, the U.S. Attorney has had dramatic success in using federal money for prevention through the Weed and Seed program, after-school programs like Safe and Sound, and more Boys and Girls Clubs, among other successful programs. These programs, combined with federal assistance for enforcement with a HIDTA (HI-ta) and Operation Ceasefire, have resulted in an impressive decline in youth crime and crime generally.

Can I get your assurance today that federal assistance to U.S. Attorneys will continue as they increase their efforts to lead proactive community coalitions to prevent and fight crime? And what will you do to encourage and support this trend?

As your question makes clear, it is very important to fight crime at all levels - both at the prosecution stage as well as the prevention stage. I have also witnessed the success of a HIDTA in my home state of Missiouri. Thus, I can assure you that, if confirmed as Attorney General, I will strongly encourage U.S. Attorneys to continue their efforts to lead proactive community coalitions to prevent and fight crime. I further assure you that I will work to ensure that the U.S. Attorneys have the resources necessary to perform their jobs effectively.

MAIL-ORDER BRIDES AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING

Q. In 1996, as part of the Immigration Bill, the Senate passed my measure that called for the INS to issue a study about the growing "mail-order bride" business in the United States. The INS was also to draft a regulation aimed at requiring these so-called "international matchmaking organizations" to provide their foreign women recruits with background information regarding U.S. immigration law. At the very least, that is what INS was supposed to do according to the law we passed almost five years ago.

The INS issued a report which suggested that recent developments, in particular the presence of mail-order businesses on the Internet, will require continued monitoring of this business. More recent events, such as the discovery of a slain mail-order bride near Seattle - her American husband is the suspected murderer - suggest that violence in these types of marriages is a growing problem.

The INS has yet to issue the proposed regulation as required by the 1996 law. That is unfortunate, because we need to get after these matchmaking agencies to both better inform the potential brides-to-be, and screen the American bride seekers.

First, do you agree there's a problem with this mail-order bride industry? If so, will you instruct the INS to take a more active role in policing these practices? At the very least, will you see to it that the INS issue the proposed regulation that is almost four years overdue?

I believe that marriage is an institution that should be cherished, and as Attorney General, I will fully enforce all federal laws concerning human trafficking. I have not examined the issue of mail order brides in depth, but if confirmed, I will give it appropriate attention, and ensure that the INS takes all appropriate action required by law, including the laws to which you refer.

TRAFFICKING OF WOMEN AND CHILDREN

Q. Trafficking of women and children is a growing global problem, teetering on crisis. It is hard to believe that an international prostitution and slave trade is thriving - and growing - in the year 2001. Almost 50,000 persons are trafficked each year to the United States. These people are victims, not criminals. The real offenders are the crime lords who manage this despicable trade.

Significant legislation became law late last year - specifically the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000. Part of the goal of this new law is to target the traffickers, not the victims. So, the act lets the Attorney General extend special visas to 5,000 sex-trafficking victims a year. Hopefully, by allowing the victims to remain protected in this country, we will be able to encourage their cooperation in bringing down the traffickers.

The success of this law will be depend upon its implementation. As Attorney General, will you be dedicated to issuing these 5,000 newly created visas in an effort to crack down on international human trafficking? What is your feeling generally about how best to fight this terrible practice that terrorizes hundreds of thousands of women and children each year?

Like you, I believe that human trafficking is a serious problem. No individual, anywhere, should suffer the indignity of the slave trade. Thus, if confirmed as Attorney General, I will fully and vigorously enforce the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, and any other law that Congress chooses to enact in this area.

DEADBEAT PARENTS PUNISHMENT ACT ENFORCEMENT

Q. In 1998, Senator DeWine and I authored the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act which became law with widespread bipartisan support. Estimates then indicated that if delinquent parents fully paid their child support, approximately 800,000 women and children could be taken off the welfare rolls. While I do not have updated figures, I remain convinced that enforcement of the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act will yield increased collection of late payments which in turn will make life easier for tens of thousands of mothers and their children.

Will you pledge to enforce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act and will you detail how you intend to ensure strict enforcement of this law?

I pledge to you that if confirmed as Attorney General, I will enforce the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act. Although I have not studied the details of this law, I will do so, and do my best to ensure that those meant to be protected by it are fully protected.

PRESUMPTION

Q. You've testified repeatedly today that as Attorney General you will enforce the law - it is your responsibility simply to administer the law as it currently exists.

There are thousands of ongoing cases in the Justice Department - civil suits, criminal matters, antitrust cases and investigations of all sorts. Some of them are notable like the Microsoft case, the tobacco lawsuit, airline merger reviews, among the many cases.

If your job as Attorney General is simply to enforce the law, then are the Department's currently pending cases deserving of a presumption that these cases are worthwhile and deserve continued prosecution?

If these cases are not deserving of such a presumption, what standard will you use in deciding whether to continue the case?

Obviously, if confirmed as Attorney General, I have the obligation to become fully informed about the important cases currently being conducted by the Department's legal divisions. I will utilize the expertise of the Department's staff, which has been and will be responsible for the day-to-day management of these cases, in meeting this responsibility and before concluding that the course of any of these major litigation matters should be altered.

TOBACCO LITIGATION

Q. In September 1999, the Justice Department sued the tobacco industry to recover federal costs associated with diseases caused by smoking. The federal government alleges that the tobacco companies knew since 1953 at the latest that tobacco use increases the risk of disease and death, but they hid that fact from the American people through fraud and deceit. It also alleges that tobacco companies have repeatedly stated that they do not market cigarettes to children, while in fact using advertising and marketing techniques to make their products attractive to children. And it alleges that the companies repeatedly denied that cigarettes are addictive, even though they have long understood and exploited the addictive properties of nicotine.

On September 28, 2000, U.S. District Court Judge Gladys Kessler decided the industry's motion to dismiss the case. While she dismissed some counts, she upheld the government's right to sue the tobacco industry under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). That portion of the case is moving forward. Discovery is under way and the judge has set a trial date.

There was a debate in Congress about whether to fund this lawsuit, but Congress has made a clear decision to have the lawsuit proceed.

I am concerned that you might abandon this ongoing lawsuit if you are confirmed as Attorney General. After all, you have stated that you personally oppose suing the tobacco companies, and you would be serving a President who has stated that he does not support this effort to recover federal tobacco costs. On August 6, 2000, Governor Bush said at a campaign rally in Michigan: "I think we've had enough suits."

I believe you have an institutional responsibility to carry forward existing litigation, especially since a federal judge has upheld the validity of the suit and Congress has allowed the lawsuit to proceed.

Will you commit to this Committee that you will not abandon this important litigation if you are confirmed as Attorney General, notwithstanding your personal views?

As I stated repeatedly at the hearings, I recognize clearly the distinction between the policy positions I took as a legislator and my obligation to enforce the law as Attorney General if I am confirmed. With regard to major ongoing litigation at the Department, I believe that I would have an obligation to review such matters as appropriate when these matters are brought to my attention as significant decisions are made. In any such review I would obviously seek the views of the career attorneys at the Department involved in the case. At this point I am unaware of the details of either the theory or the factual allegations of the RICO aspects of the case which were not dismissed by Judge Kessler. I am therefore not able at this point to comment on the specific merits of the case which the government has brought.

Q. As you may know, the decision to bring this lawsuit was supported by senior career lawyers within the Justice Department. Will you commit to following the recommendation of the career lawyers within the Justice Department about whether to proceed, or will you override their judgment?

As I stated above, I would obviously consult the career lawyers involved in the case and consider their advice. However, since I have not been briefed on either the theory or the factual allegations of the case, I am unable to address it on the merits at this stage. The peril of commenting in a case before reviewing it is aptly illustrated by Attorney General Reno's initial comment in 1997 before this committee that only the states and not the federal government had a cause of action against the tobacco companies. Obviously she changed her position later. I would hope to avoid the risk of prejudging pending litigation, before a careful examination of the facts and law underlying the case.

Q. Do you believe the American taxpayer is entitled to be reimbursed for decades of fraud and deceit by the tobacco industry that has led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and billions in health care costs every year in the U.S.?

Obviously any government official has to be concerned about anything which causes death or increased costs to the taxpayer. In 1998 I applauded the settlement reached by the state of Missouri with the tobacco companies which targeted the problem of teenage smoking and which compensated the state of Missouri for its health costs caused by the use of tobacco. However, as the prospective Attorney General, it is not appropriate for me to comment in a conclusory fashion on these issues in the federal context until I have been fully briefed on the present lawsuit.

Q. When it comes to the tobacco companies, we are not talking about a few mistakes by a corporation. U.S. District Court Judge Kessler stated in her ruling that the tobacco companies "cannot possibly claim that their alleged conspiratorial actions were 'isolated.' On the contrary the Complaint describes more than 100 predicate acts spanning more than a half-century." The federal suit alleges a four-decades-long conspiracy to intentionally and willfully deceive and mislead the American public. Do you think the federal government has a role in addressing this sort of behavior, whether it is behavior by the tobacco companies or any other company?

Again it would not be appropriate for me to address the factual allegations or any other aspects of a detailed complaint about which I have not been briefed. Obviously allegations about "a decades-long conspiracy to deceive and mislead the American public" raise a serious issue. However, I need to study the theory and allegations of this specific complaint before I can make an informed comment.

Q. The federal suit against the tobacco companies alleges that the industry issued deceptive press releases, published false and misleading articles, destroyed and concealed documents which indicated that there was in fact a correlation between smoking and disease, and aggressively targeted children as potential new smokers. Do you think these sort of actions should be tolerated? Doesn't the federal government have a role in addressing this sort of deceit?

Obviously, depending on the context, document destruction and publication of false statements by corporations can and should be subject to serious legal sanction. However, it would not be responsible for me to address particular characterizations of corporate misconduct in a pending government lawsuit until I have read the current pleadings and have been fully briefed on the case.

Q. I believe all decisions regarding this lawsuit, including the decision about whether to continue, should be based on the facts and merits of the case. However, interested observers including the press and stock analysts are already predicting the end of the lawsuit based on the results of the Presidential election and your nomination. This speculation has taken place before the new Administration or you have reviewed the merits of the case or been briefed by Justice Department staff handling the case. Will you commit to reviewing the merits of the case before you abandon this lawsuit in midstream?

Just as it would not be responsible for me to comment on the merits of a case on which I have not been briefed, clearly it would be irresponsible for me as Attorney General to change course on a major piece of ongoing litigation without fully reviewing it and being briefed by the staff. I will of course carefully review the merits of this lawsuit if I am confirmed.

Q. A federal Judge has already ruled the case is valid. In filing this lawsuit, the Justice Department was fulfilling its obligation to enforce federal law. Will you enforce existing laws against this industry despite any personal views?

I have repeatedly stated that as Attorney General I will enforce existing law without regard to my personal views. It is my understanding that, in this particular lawsuit, the federal judge ruled on a motion by the defendants to dismiss the case at a preliminary stage. I will have to review the details of the case before I can make a more informed judgment about it.

TEEN SMOKING

Q. As you remember, in 1998 there was a comprehensive proposal to address the issue of teenage smoking - the so-called McCain bill. You were the sole "no" vote in Committee and during the debate in the Senate floor you offered an amendment to take out most of the funding mechanisms of the bill. You stated on the Senate floor on May 20, 1998: "My view is we should try to do things we can actually do to reduce teen smoking, and we have to do it in a way that is not an oppressive tax burden on hard-working families, especially low-income families in America." You also said: "I agree we have to do what we can to appropriately use what resources we can to reduce teen smoking."

Both as a non-smoker, and a grandparent of young children, I am aware of and very concerned about the hazards to health of smoking by teenagers. On the floor of the Senate with regard to the legislation advocated by Senator McCain in 1998, I stated, "As a non-smoker, and having watched a number of my friends die from smoking, I am not here to defend the tobacco companies." My main concern about the McCain proposal was the massive tax increase it imposed upon all smokers. This was not a tax increase which either was or could be targeted against just teenagers. The sad fact is that there still adults who choose to smoke in America and many of them are in low-income families. It simply did not seem to me that a huge tax increase upon them was the proper way to address the problem of smoking by teenagers.

Q. You say that the federal government has to do whatever is within its power to address the issue of teen smoking but you disagreed with the provisions that were in the McCain comprehensive tobacco control legislation. In your role as advisor to the President, what steps would recommend to address the problem of teen smoking?

The President has asked me to give any advice to him in private, and I plan to honor that request. On a personal level, I believe the basic long-term answer lies in raising the awareness of young people at every stage of the educational process to the dangers involved in the use of these various substances. This is fully consistent with President Bush's proposals in this area, which I fully support. I have a long track record of support for such educational efforts.

Q. The tobacco companies have targeted our children in their advertising. RJR's Joe Camel campaign is just one of the examples. The tobacco companies advertise near schools, have given away cigarettes to kids, sponsor sporting events, rock concerts and other events that are heavily attended by children. Do you think the government has a role in protecting children from this sort of targeting?

Yes. I certainly believe that the government has a role in supporting the antismoking educational efforts I have referred to above. I also have the impression that the tobacco companies have agreed to eliminate cigarette advertising targeted toward children and teenagers. I am also generally aware that there has been litigation regarding the government's ability to regulate the tobacco companies and that the FTC has a role in regulating cigarette advertising. However, without a more detailed briefing I am unable to comment further on the government's appropriate level of involvement.

Q. Senator Ashcroft, can I count on you to vigorously support and enforce the False Claims Act and its qui tam provisions?

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will fully enforce the False Claims Act and its qui tam provisions. As you know, some have questioned the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions. Questions concerning the validity of laws should be answered only in the context of a specific case or controversy raising the issue. While it would be imprudent to make a legal determination on the question now, absent a full and thorough review of the relevant law, my obligation as Attorney General will be to defend the constitutionality of duly enacted federal law whenever a good faith and conscientious basis exists for doing so.

Q. Current Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder has issued guidelines for the enforcement of the False Claims Act by Justice Department attorneys. Will you continue these guidelines?

Though I have not yet had an opportunity to familiarize myself with these guidelines in detail, I assure you that any action that I take with respect to the guidelines will be done only after a full and fair review in consultation with the Justice Department experts in the area.

Q. There have been efforts by some trade groups whose members have been sued under the False Claims Act to seek amendments that would weaken the Act, such as removing minimum damages and increasing the burden of proof on the government or on whistleblowers. Can I count on you, while you are Attorney General, to vigorously oppose all such efforts to weaken the Act?

Though I have not had an opportunity to review the False Claims Act, or any proposed amendment thereto, in detail, I look forward to working with you in the future to ensure that the False Claims Act fulfills the purpose for which it exists.

Q. I believe that the Justice Department has an accomplished team in the Civil Division that conducts and oversees False Claim Act cases. There are also a good number of first-rate attorneys in the U.S. Attorney's Offices that handle False Claims Act cases. Will you maintain those resources?

Though I have not had an opportunity to review the U.S. Attorney's Offices in this area, I have no intention to change the priority currently given to enforcement of the False Claims Act. Any decision made in this regard will be done only after a full and fair review of the matter.

Q. It seems that the Justice Department declines to participate in 75% to 80% of the cases brought to its attention by whistleblowers. This suggests that the Department should increase the number of attorneys assigned to False Claims Act matters. Would you consider arranging for such an increase in the immediate future?

Though I have not had an opportunity to review this issue in detail, if confirmed, I pledge that I will commit resources where they are needed most. If, upon review, I determine that that area is False Claims Act enforcement, I will not hesitate to allocate additional resources in that direction.

Q. It appears to take the Justice Department a very long time to investigate and decide to intervene in a False Claims Act case initiated by a whistleblower. I understand the Civil Division has no in-house investigators, but must rely entirely on investigators working for other departments. Would you consider changing that situation by establishing a cadre of in-house DOJ False Claims Act fraud investigators?

Again, I have not reviewed this area in detail. I would certainly be open to establishing in-house DOJ False Claims Act fraud investigators if, upon a full and fair review, it were determined that such a need existed.

Q. I see a need for closer cooperation between the Department of Justice and the qui tam bar, the lawyers who represent the whistleblowers (technically called "relators"). There are some problems: 1) even when the Department of Justice joins a case, the Department too often seems to hold whistleblowers and their lawyers at arms' length, failing to use them as a resource to help develop the case, or even failing to keep them informed; and 2) the Department of Justice sometimes views whistleblowers and their lawyers as adversaries, and puts inordinate resources into efforts to eliminate or minimize their bounty. Senator Ashcroft, I would like the Department of Justice under your leadership to embrace the qui tam whistleblowers and their attorneys. I would also like to see a more cooperative relationship than now exists. Do you believe that the network of whistleblowers could be a valuable resource in combating fraud against the federal treasury? Would you agree to foster a closer relationship between the Justice Department and the qui tam plaintiffs and their attorneys?

I fully agree that qui tam whistleblowers are a valuable resource in combating fraud against the federal treasury, and that a good relationship between relators and the Justice Department is important. I further agree that if confirmed, I will work to foster that relationship as appropriate.

Q. In the past, there have been some in the Department of Justice who have sought to undermine the constitutional legitimacy of the False Claims Act. Do you believe that the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act are constitutional in light of the Supreme Court decision in Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. U.S. ex rel. Stevens? Will you use your leadership to assure that the Justice Department's resources are not wasted on efforts to undermine the constitutional legitimacy of the False Claims Act, especially after the recent Vermont Agency of Natural Resources case?

Questions concerning the validity of laws should be answered only in the context of a specific case or controversy raising the issue. While it would be imprudent to make a legal determination on the question now, absent a full and thorough review of the relevant law, my obligation as Attorney General will be to defend the constitutionality of duly enacted federal law whenever a good faith and conscientious basis exists for doing so.

Q. Senator Ashcroft, will your staff conduct a review of the policies and procedures currently in place at the Antitrust Division to ensure that they are up to date and consistent with other agency policies in regard to antitrust matters? In addition, will you ensure that the Antitrust Division's policies and procedures are being followed? The General Accounting Office soon will be issuing a report that will find that the Antitrust Division has not strictly complied with its procedures for handling public complaints and inquiries. It is important that the Antitrust Division follow the policies and procedures it sets, not only for the proper functioning of the Division, but also to provide assurance to the public that the Division is accountable for its actions and decisions.

Yes. I look forward to working with you on these matters.

CIVIL RIGHTS

Q. What are your priorities for the U.S. Department of Justice, particularly the Civil Rights Division?

My highest priority is to ensure that the Department of Justice lives up to its heritage of enforcing the rule of law, and in particular, guaranteeing legal rights for the advancement of all Americans. However, as I mentioned during the hearing, one of my highest priorities at the Department will be to target the unconstitutional practice of racial profiling.

Q. What is your view of the role of the Civil Rights Division?

I believe that the Civil Rights Division must be at the forefront of carrying out the special charge of the Department of Justice to combat injustice and to ensure that all Americans are treated fairly and free from invidious discrimination.

Q. In response to a question I posed about DOJ Pride (a voluntary organization of gay, lesbian and bisexual DOJ employees), you indicated that you would not discriminate against "any group that [is] appropriately constituted in the Department of Justice." Please explain how you define "appropriately constituted" and indicate whether you believe DOJ Pride fits that definition.

In my testimony I stated that I would not tolerate discrimination against any employee at the Department of Justice because of sexual preference. That answer stands. When I referred to any "appropriately constituted group," it was because I am unaware of what current Department policies are regarding organization of professional as well as other employees. Until I am fully briefed on these and other personnel policies I am not in a position to express an opinion on any particular organization or group of employees and whether or not they are "appropriately constituted." However, assuming this organization is appropriately constituted under existing Department policies, I have no intent to change those policies or treat this group differently than any other.

Q. In response to a question about the policy Attorney General Janet Reno instituted that sexual orientation not be a factor for FBI security clearances, you indicated that you were "not familiar" with this policy. Now that you have had a chance to become familiar with it, will you continue and enforce this formal policy?

A review of FBI clearance policies, and FBI policies generally, will be an ongoing process at the Department of Justice. Consistent with my prior answer regarding discrimination based upon sexual preference, I do not anticipate changing security clearance policies which have previously received broad acceptance within the government, to the extent which I will have any authority in the matter.

Q. Given your strong opposition to Mr. James Hormel to be the U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg and your opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, can you assure this Committee that you would not consider sexual orientation in making recommendations to the President on federal judicial nominees or high-ranking Justice Department officials?

As I have previously stated, my opposition to Mr. Hormel was based on the totality of the specific facts and circumstances of that particular case. My opposition to him in no way reflects a past or future intent to discriminate against anyone based on sexual preference. I have repeatedly committed that I will not discriminate against anyone on that basis, and that I will not have any litmus test for judicial nominees.

Q. The Justice Department under Attorney General Reno actively investigated allegations of police misconduct by law enforcement agencies and did not shy away from taking legal action to protect the civil rights of Americans. Do you agree with the Justice Department's decision to investigate and then enter into a consent decree with the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles Police Department?

As I have previously testified, I strongly support the Justice Department's special charge to protect the rights of those least able to protect themselves. I have expressed my opposition to unwarranted strip searches, racial profiling, and other abuses of civil rights by law enforcement authorities. While I have not been briefed on the specific situation in Los Angeles, I oppose police misconduct wherever it occurs.

Q. As you know, there is discretion in the Attorney General's decision of how to proceed in such cases. The Attorney General can take legal action, defer litigation and instead "send a letter of concern," or decline intervening at all. If confirmed as Attorney General, how would you handle allegations of misconduct by a police department?

It is the duty of the Civil Rights Division in the first instance to investigate such allegations and to assess whether federal intervention is appropriate. As Attorney General, I will trust state and local law enforcement, but will fully enforce federal civil rights laws. In light of their role in law enforcement, allegations that police departments are engaged in law breaking raises particular concerns to which the Department will be especially sensitive.

Q. What would your standard be for determining whether to take legal action against a police department?

The question is difficult to answer in the abstract. My answer would be guided by the facts and the law, in consultation with professionals at the Department.

RACIAL PROFILING

Q. The hearing held in the Constitution Subcommittee on March 30, 2000, focused on racial profiling of motorists. Does your opposition to racial profiling include racial profiling of airline passengers or people walking down the street?

I have stated my strong opposition to racial profiling across the spectrum. There should be no loopholes or safe harbors for racial profiling. Official discrimination of this sort is wrong and unconstitutional no matter what the context.

Q. On January 15, 2001, President Clinton called on Congress to pass a law that bans racial profiling. Would you support such a bill?

Former President Clinton proposed a host of things shortly before he left office. I am unaware of the specifics of this particular bill. I am certainly prepared to work with you on appropriate legislation to deal with racial profiling in a clear and decisive manner.

FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY: INNOCENCE AND THE CLEMENCY PROCESS

Q. At the hearing, you acknowledged that our justice system has made mistakes and that innocent people have been convicted and even sentenced to death. Do you share the concern that a system that sends innocent people to death is seriously flawed?

While I support the death penalty, I believe that there is no greater injustice than to execute one who is innocent. No system of justice is perfect, but I will certainly work with the President and Congress to help insure that we have a system that protects the rights of capital defendants.

Q. What, in your experience, causes these mistakes?

I do not think it is possible to isolate any single factor or set of factors. For example, the jury system of fact-finding enshrined in the Bill of Rights has never been said to be perfect. It simply affords more protections against government abuses of individual rights than other systems utilized in other countries. That, of course, does not relieve government from the obligation to continue to work to make the system fairer and more just.

Q. During the campaign last year, President-elect Bush stated that he applies the following test to clemency requests from death row inmates: whether the person is guilty of the crime and whether he or she had full access to the courts. Do you believe that other considerations might be taken into account beyond whether the inmate is guilty and has had full access to the courts?

President Bush was explaining in the context of a national political campaign his general practice as Governor in Texas, a death penalty state, regarding clemency applications in capital cases once judicial avenues had been exhausted. While it is possible to conceive of other considerations in a specific case, the ones to which then-Governor Bush referred seem the most important and relevant ones.

Q. How do you define "full access to the courts"?

I do not believe this term is a term of art. It has a commonly accepted interpretation - that a defendant has received representation by competent counsel, has received a fair trial, and has exhausted or has chosen not to exercise all of his avenues of judicial appeal.

Q. Given President-elect Bush's and your strong support for capital punishment, could you ever recommend a grant of clemency in a death penalty case? What are the circumstances under which you would recommend that the President grant clemency?

Yes. In determining any recommendation on this issue, I would follow the guidelines that the President has outlined: I would consider whether the person is guilty of the crime and whether he or she had full access to the courts.

Q. If there is no question that the person is guilty, but there are errors in the penalty phase of the trial - or, in other words, errors that mean the difference between the defendant receiving a death sentence or life without parole, might you support a grant of clemency in such a case?

Any advice that I would give to the President is confidential. However, the President has indicated that his decision would be made based on whether the individual is guilty of the crime and whether he or she has had full access to the courts. When questions are raised as to whether an individual is guilty of capital murder, as opposd to a crime for which the death penalty is not provided, I would include such factors in my analysis and would advise him accordingly.

Q. What do you see as the role of the clemency process when a person has a claim of innocence that has been rejected by the courts? In such a case, would you be willing to review evidence or circumstances that the appellate courts have never allowed a jury to hear (e.g., because the courts never granted a retrial)? Do you believe that clemency should only be granted in cases where the defendant presents a claim of innocence?

As discussed above, the President has clearly indicated the factors that he would consider in deciding whether to grant clemency. The role of the clemency process is to determine whether there is a basis for clemency based upon those factors. And this process should include all evidence that bears on the factors outlined above.

FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY: REPORT AND CONTINUING REVIEW

Q. On September 12, 2000, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report on the federal death penalty entitled Survey of the Federal Death Penalty System (1988-2000). This report confirmed that there are significant and unexplained racial and geographic disparities in the federal government's decisions to seek the death penalty.

Are you troubled by the fact that about 75% of those against whom the Department of Justice seeks the death penalty are people of color or ethnic minorities, even though far less than 75% of the people who commit federal capital crimes are people of color and ethnic minorities?

Yes, it troubles me deeply.

Q. Wouldn't you agree that the fair, just and sure administration of the federal death penalty requires that it be applied completely free of racial bias?

Yes.

Q. Are you troubled by the fact that the same federal crime is not prosecuted as a federal capital crime in different parts of the country?

I fully agree that, as a general principle, federal law should be applied uniformly across the country, and, if confirmed, will work to help ensure that this is the case.

Q. Wouldn't you agree that the fair, just and sure administration of the federal death penalty requires that it be applied uniformly across the country, so that whether one lives or dies in the federal system is not dependent on the district in which the prosecution takes place?

As noted above, I fully agree that nationwide uniformity in the application of federal law is important.

Q. Are you troubled by the fact that more than half the federal capital prosecutions come from less than one-third of the states, even though the incidence of federal capital crimes is fairly evenly distributed across the entire country?

Yes, though I am unsure why this is the case. There are many differences in different jurisdictions, but, as noted, I agree that the uniform application of federal law is important.

Q. Attorney General Reno and Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder have expressed concern about these disparities. Do you agree with the following statement by Attorney General Reno:

Noting that the Department could not explain the disparities, she said, "[a]n even broader analysis must therefore be undertaken to determine if bias does in fact play any role in the federal death penalty system."

I fully agree that the Department of Justice should do everything necessary to eliminate any racial bias from the federal death penalty system, including undertaking all reasonable and appropriate research necessary to understand the nature of the problem.

Q. Do you agree with Attorney General Reno's statement that the death penalty should be imposed only after "sound study and thorough analysis"?

I fully agree that we should have a thorough study of the system and that the death penalty should be imposed only upon satisfaction of the full rigors of Due Process. Nor should race play any role in determining whether someone is subject to the capital punishment.

Q. On December 7, 2000, President Clinton granted a reprieve for the first person scheduled to be executed by the federal government - an Hispanic American man from Texas named Juan Raul Garza - because of his concerns with racial and regional disparities. Do you agree with President Clinton that there is a need for "continuing study" of "possible racial and regional bias" because "[i]n this area there is no room for error"?

Yes.

Q. Do you agree with President Clinton that we must thoroughly examine and address racial and geographic disparities in the federal death penalty system before the United States "goes forward with an execution in a case that may implicate the very questions raised by the Justice Department's continuing study"?

I fully agree that no individual should be subjected to capital punishment where it is apparent that he or she was either denied the full rigors of Due Process, or his or her conviction and/or sentence was imposed on account of the individual's race. I further agree that we should work together to ensure a uniform application of all federal law, including the federal death penalty, across the Nation.

Q. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, what will you do about the racial and geographic disparities in the application of the federal death penalty?

Like you, I strongly oppose allowing race to play any role in the imposition of the death penalty - it is an unconstitutional act that should never take place. If confirmed, I assure you that I will thoroughly study this issue before determining any reasonable and appropriate action that need be taken, and will then take all reasonable and appropriate action to address the issue.

Q. Will you recommend to President Bush to do as President Clinton did - not to allow federal executions until these disparities are fully studied, discussed, and the federal death penalty process subjected to necessary remedial action?

The President has asked that I keep my specific recommendations to him private, and I plan to honor that request. I can say that I personally do not believe that a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty at the federal level is currently warranted. We have relatively few criminal defendants on death row in the federal system and, in my view, it would be unfair, for example, to interfere with the sentence that the judge and jury imposed upon Timothy McVeigh while a study is ongoing. Of course, all federal defendants are entitled to the full protections of Due Process and applications for clemency.

FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY: RELIABILITY AND FAIRNESS OF FEDERAL CAPITAL PROSECUTIONS

Q. In their book, Actual Innocence, defense lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld outline a number of problems in our criminal justice system that lead to unreliable results. Have you read the book Actual Innocence?

I have not had the opportunity to do so, but would welcome the chance if you recommend it.

Q. The following questions will address some of the problems outlined in the book with a particular focus on the federal criminal justice system. The first area is bargained-for testimony. Federal prosecutors rely heavily on testimony from accomplices of defendants charged with a crime that, if convicted, could result in a death sentence. This testimony is often obtained in exchange for not seeking the death penalty against the accomplices.

Do you agree that this practice of obtaining bargained-for testimony can create a serious risk of false testimony?

Depending on the circumstances, there is certainly a risk that testimony obtained in exchange for leniency can be unreliable.

Q. If there are no other safeguards to assure the reliability of such testimony, do you think that federal prosecutors should be discouraged, or even precluded, from using such testimony?

Although I recognize the serious nature of the problem that you are raising, I imagine that one important safeguard is the ability of defense counsel to cross-examine the witness. In any event, I would be hesitant to make any broad generalizations outside to context of a concrete case.

Q. Federal prosecutors are not required to provide meaningful discovery far enough ahead of trial to permit the defense to be prepared to use this information effectively. Would you support legislative action to provide greater discovery of the government's case further in advance of trial than is now required?

Not having had an opportunity to review the issue thoroughly, I cannot comment on the specific legislative proposal that you proffer. However, I fully believe that all individuals that appear before our Nation's courts should be accorded the full protection of Due Process, and that prosecutors should comport themselves in a way that respects the constitutional rights of criminal defendants.

Q. Would you support changes in the United States Attorneys' Manual to require an "open file" policy in relation to discovery?

Although I am not familiar with the details of this specific policy, I would be happy to work with you to help ensure that all criminal defendants receive the full protection of Due Process.

Q. The FBI, in increasing isolation from the rest of the nation's law enforcement agencies, refuses to make electronic recordings of interrogations that produce confessions. Do you agree that this practice makes subsequent scrutiny of the legality and reliability of such interrogations more difficult?

I have not reviewed the details of this specific FBI policy, and would need to consult with the professionals at the FBI before making an assessment. I assure you that I will take all reasonable steps to help ensure that all criminal defendants receive the full protection of Due Process.

Q. Do you have any objection to changing this practice?

I have an open mind on this issue. Not yet having had the opportunity to conduct a full and fair review of the policy, I cannot currently make a reasonable assessment.

Q. Federal prosecutors rely heavily on predictions of "future dangerousness" to secure death sentences. Do you know that such predictions are deemed unreliable and misleading by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association?

I am not familiar with these determinations by the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association or the standards or bases they used in their analysis.

Q. Do you have any concern about federal prosecutors' reliance on such predictions?

I am concerned about all issues that affect the right of criminal defendants to a full and fair trial. I would be happy to work with you to help ensure that all criminal defendants receive the full protection of Due Process.

Q. Is reliance on evidence that the leading mental health professional associations in the country consider "junk science" a practice that you believe to be defensible in federal prosecutions?

I fully agree that it is improper to rely on "junk science" in criminal prosecutions.

Q. Scheck and Neufeld also highlight the appalling problem of incompetent attorneys who represent people facing death-eligible crimes. This is a particular problem at the state level but the federal system is not totally immune. There are, unfortunately, many cases across the country of people who were represented at trial by drunk lawyers, lawyers who slept through the trial, lawyers who were later suspended or disbarred, or lawyers who were paid far less than a living wage. Do you agree that this is a problem?

I am troubled by the sorts of cases that you have enumerated, and we need to work constructively to raise the bar on the quality of legal service offered to criminal defendants. In particular, I look forward to working constructively with you to formulate ideas to raise the quality of legal defense.

Q. I have joined Senator Leahy as a co-sponsor of legislation that would begin to address this serious problem, the Innocence Protection Act. As Attorney General, would you support incentive grants or conditioning federal funds to the States on the States' ensuring certain minimum standards for competency of legal counsel in death penalty cases?

Although I an unable to comment on specific legislation, I agree that every defendant is entitled to his or her 6th Amendment right to counsel and that if DNA is available and can prove a person's guilt or innocence, it should be used.

Q. What do you think the federal role should be with respect to the performance of the States in providing adequate legal representation for capital defendants?

The federal courts play a critical role in helping ensure that state criminal prosecutions, and especially death penalty prosecutions, comport with the strictures of the federal Constitution.

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY AND SCHOOL PRAYER

Q. In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Doe vs. Santa Fe Independent School District that a public prayer led by an elected student chaplain at a football game between two public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Court cited Lee v. Weisman, a 1992 opinion in which the Court concluded, "the Constitution guarantees that government may not coerce anyone to support or participate in religion or its exercise, or otherwise act in a way that establishes a state religion or religious faith, or tends to do so." It's no secret that you believe these decisions were mistaken. You have spoken out against the Supreme Court's decisions on the separation of church and state on many occasions. At a 1998 meeting of the Christian Coalition, you said: "A robed elite have taken the wall of separation built to protect the church and made it a wall of religious oppression. They may try to take prayer from our schools, but they can never steal God from our hearts. I believe that we must continue across this land to fight for our God-given right to acknowledge and affirm our Creator."

If you are confirmed, will the Department of Justice challenge the activities of school districts that violate the Doe v. Santa Fe and Lee v. Weisman decisions?

Both of these cases involved actions by private litigants, rather than Justice Department actions. Nevertheless, if confirmed, I will ensure that the Justice Department fully and fairly enforces the constitutional rights of all citizens as those rights have been interpreted by the Supreme Court.

Q. Will you instruct the Solicitor General to file amicus briefs that follow an interpretation of the Constitution that ensures religious liberty and the separation of church and state?

Yes.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE: APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL IN CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASES

Q. You and others in Congress were highly critical of former Attorney General Janet Reno for failing to seek an Independent Counsel (or after the Independent Counsel statute expired, appoint a special counsel) to investigate fundraising abuses by the President Clinton's campaign in 1996. As you know, I felt that a special counsel should have been appointed to investigate campaign finance abuses by both sides in the 1996 campaign. Under what circumstances will you appoint a special counsel to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the President or those involved in his campaign? Do you believe that the public can have confidence in an investigation of the campaign fundraising by the President or his associates run by the Justice Department?

In light of the varied circumstances in which the need for a special counsel could arise, it is difficult to state generally when a special counsel should or should not be appointed. Moreover, because each case must be reviewed on its particular facts, it would be impossible to state before-the-fact whether a particular case would warrant the appointment of a special counsel. Clearly, if a case arose in which it would be difficult for any official within the Justice Department to investigate the allegations of wrongdoing impartially and fully, the possibility of appointing a special counsel clearly should be considered. Furthermore, I believe that if the integrity of the Justice Department is secure, then the public can have full confidence in investigations conducted by the Justice Department.

SOFT MONEY CONTRIBUTIONS

Q. As you know, one of the reasons I have worked so hard for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill is that I am very concerned about the appearance created when large soft money contributions are given to the political parties. These very large donations can appear like bribes or even extortion, and I believe we must ban soft money in this Congress. Although you and I have disagreed on what change in laws is necessary, would you agree that there is an appearance problem that we should be concerned about here?

Yes.

Q. On July 27, 1999, you cosponsored S. 1172, a bill that would have made it possible for Schering-Plough, a major pharmaceutical company, to obtain a patent extension for its big selling allergy drug Claritin. Some estimate that the value of the patent extension to Schering-Plough would be over $9 billion. Just two months later, on September 30, 1999, Schering-Plough contributed $50,000 to the non-federal account of the Ashcroft Victory Fund. What was the Ashcroft Victory Fund? What is your understanding of the arrangement that allowed a fundraising committee associated with you to receive contributions of this size? What was your role in obtaining this contribution?

The Ashcroft Victory Fund was a joint fundraising committee between the Ashcroft 2000 Committee and the National Republican Senatorial Committee. The Committee operated under Federal Election Commission guidelines allowing contributions of this size. Corporate funds such as this were disbursed to the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS AND THE MICROSOFT CASE

Q. Another case that the current Department of Justice brought was the antitrust suit against Microsoft. This case has proceeded to a verdict at the District Court level and is now on appeal. According to Common Cause, Microsoft and its executives gave over $1.8 million in soft money to the parties last year, nearly a million to the Republican party committees. As the suit intensified, Microsoft's soft money contributions nearly doubled from the 1998 election cycle. Do you see an appearance problem here? How will you assure the American people that your decision on the Department's pursuit of this lawsuit is not influenced by Microsoft's campaign contributions to your party?

President Bush is committed to an Administration that adheres to the highest ethical standards. Towards that end, I will work vigorously to ensure that every decision made by the Justice Department is based on the law and on the facts. This fully applies to the Microsoft case. On this score there can be no doubt: The Department of Justice will operate free from any improper or untoward influence.

JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

Q. Do you believe that the Judiciary Committee should vote on all nominees submitted by President Bush and that those nominees who receive a favorable vote, or a tie vote under the agreement between Senators Daschle and Lott, should be put on the Senate Executive Calendar for consideration by the full Senate?

I believe that the Senate should give timely and fair consideration to the President's judicial nominations.

Q. Assuming that there are no problems with completing FBI background checks or other logistical impediments to a vote being held, do you agree with the proposal made by President-elect Bush during the campaign that all nominees should receive a vote in the Senate within 60 days of their nominations?

During the campaign, in order to minimize delay and division over presidential appointments, and attract good people to public service, then-Governor Bush promised that if elected, he would make prompt submissions of presidential nominees a top priority, and challenge Congress to act within 60 days of the submission of nominees for the new Administration - regardless of who was elected president in 2000. I stand by the President's commitment in this area.

Q. In 1985, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, found that the President has the constitutional power to make recess appointments to the federal bench. Do you have any doubts about the constitutionality of recess appointments to the federal bench?

Although the Constitution explicitly authorizes the President to make recess appointments, I have not explored the constitutional issues concerning such appointments in all circumstances.

Q. During his two terms in office, President Clinton nominated four different African Americans to seats on the Fourth Circuit - James A. Beaty Jr. of North Carolina, James A. Wynn Jr. of North Carolina, Andre M. Davis of Maryland, and Roger Gregory of Virginia. Mr. Beaty was first nominated in December 1995, and his nomination was resubmitted in 1997. Neither he nor any of the other Fourth Circuit nominees who are African American received a hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Do you have any comments on these facts?

As mentioned above, during the campaign, President Bush made clear his view that Congress should act within 60 days of the submission of nominees for the new Administration - regardless of who was elected president in 2000. I will fully support the President's view on this issue.

Q. Do you see a problem with the circumstance that in the year 2001, there is not a single African American who has ever been confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit?

Yes. I think it sends the wrong message, and believe we should endeavor to appoint qualified minorities throughout the federal bench. As Governor of Missouri, I was proud to appoint eight of the nine minority candidates submitted to me on the panels of candidates proposed by the nonpartisan judicial selection commissions. As a Senator, I was likewise proud to support 26 of 28 minority judicial nominations to the federal bench. If confirmed as Attorney General, I will continue to work to enhance diversity on the federal bench, including on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Q. President Clinton has renominated nine Circuit Judges, including Judge Gregory, who were left hanging by the inaction of the Senate in the last Congress. Now these nine men and women do not constitute every nominee, nor even Circuit Court nominee on whom the Senate failed to exercise its constitutional advice and consent responsibility in the 106th Congress. I believe that President-elect Bush has an opportunity to set a different tone here - to unite the country and reach across party lines. He can put into practice the political golden rule by not withdrawing these nominations and urging this Committee and the Senate to act on them. If he wishes the Senate to change course on the subject of judicial nominations from the practice of the last three Congresses, he can set the proper example. Will you advise President Bush against withdrawing these nominations and to support them receiving a vote in the Senate in an effort to get the judicial nominations practice in this Congress off on the right foot?

As discussed above, the President, during the campaign, made clear his commitment to an expeditious process of confirming presidential nominees to the judiciary. With respect to the particular nominees addressed in your question, I will need to review fully the records of these nominees before advising the President on this matter. I assure you that I will fully and fairly review the records of these individuals before advising the President. Ultimately, however, the appointment of a judicial nominee is the President's to make, with the advice and consent of the Senate.

SCHOOL DESEGREGATION

Q. Several times during your testimony, you made very clear and direct statements that the State of Missouri was not found guilty of any wrongdoing in the St. Louis school desegregation cases and therefore should not be held liable. You also stated that the state was not a party to the litigation. For example, in response to Senator Leahy's questions, you said:

"I opposed a mandate by the federal government that the state, which had done nothing wrong, found guilty of no wrong, that they should be asked to pay this very substantial sum of money over a long course of years. And that's what I opposed."

How can you justify making this statement, while under oath, when there were two separate 8th Circuit decisions and numerous district court decisions directly finding that the state was responsible for the unconstitutional discrimination, had an affirmative duty under Brown v. Board of Education to end segregation and was liable for the costs of desegregation?

Since my selection by then-President-elect Bush to be his nominee for U.S. Attorney General, questions have been raised concerning the role I played as Attorney General during desegregation cases in St. Louis and Kansas City, Missouri. It is my view that my role and position have been mischaracterized or misinterpreted throughout this process, including during the hearing before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. I believe these mischaracterizations arose from a fundamental misunderstanding of the legal differences between an intradistrict and interdistrict remedy for school desegregation. Indeed, perhaps I was not as clear as I should have been in terms of detailing the matters that affected the conduct of these cases, as well as my role in the process of representing my client, the State of Missouri.

As I trust I can now make clear, the legal distinction between a remedy to remove the vestiges of segregation in a single school district (an intradistrict remedy) and a remedy that assumes that the State of Missouri was liable for segregation among a number of school districts (an interdistrict remedy) depends on separate findings of liability. Although the State of Missouri was found liable for a role in segregation within the City of St. Louis School District, and, in a separate case, in the City of Kansas City School District, I testified correctly that the State of Missouri had never been found liable for interdistrict liability in the City of St. Louis Metropolitan Area. Indeed, the only case in which the State of Missouri had a hearing and an opportunity to defend a claim that it was liable for participating in a system of interdistrict segregation occurred in the Kansas City case. There, the court found that the State of Missouri had not violated the Constitution on an interdistrict basis in the Kansas City Metropolitan Area.

My actions in these cases make one point very clear: I never opposed desegregation. In fact, I firmly believe that any system that discriminates against persons on the basis of race is abhorrent to the Constitution. As Attorney General of Missouri, I did oppose the requirements of the federal court in St. Louis that the State of Missouri fund an interdistrict remedy without first finding that the State of Missouri violated the law on an interdistrict basis. I did not appeal and did not object to a finding that the State of Missouri was guilty of an intradistrict violation in the City of St. Louis School District.

In Kansas City, I opposed the methods chosen by the trial court to remedy the intradistrict liability found in that case. I believed then, and I believe now, that the focus of any remedy following a finding of segregation must be primarily on educating children. The Kansas City remedy had an obvious, different focus, to which I objected on both sound legal and policy grounds. There is now universal agreement that the judge failed the children of Kansas City by ignoring my objections to his plan and placing his emphasis on everything but the children and their families.

Details of the St. Louis Litigation: The original plaintiffs sued the St. Louis School Board on February 28, 1972, claiming that the St. Louis School Board had adopted policies fostering segregation. The plaintiffs did not name the State of Missouri as a defendant in the case. On December 24, 1975, the plaintiffs and the St. Louis School Board announced an agreement to settle the case and asked the District Court to approve a consent decree. The NAACP and other parties moved to intervene in the action to oppose the settlement. The District Court did not allow the intervention. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the District Court finding and ordered intervention by these new plaintiffs and a hearing to consider these new plaintiffs' claims before ruling on the consent decree. When the new plaintiffs' disagreements with the proposed consent decree made it plain that consensus could not be reached, the District Court ordered a liability hearing and added the State of Missouri as a defendant in the case for the first time.

After a lengthy liability hearing, the District Court found that the "State of Missouri effectively removed all barriers at the state level to the desegregation of schools. . . ." Liddell v. Board of Education of the City of St. Louis, 469 F.Supp. 1304, 1314 (E.D. Mo. 1979). On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reversed, and noted testimony that "an interdistrict remedy funded by the State of Missouri would have the best chance of permanently integrating the schools of the metropolitan St. Louis area." It should be noted that at this point, although the Eighth Circuit was suggesting an interdistrict remedy, the suburban school districts were not defendants in the case. The Eighth Circuit also established guidelines for the District Court on remand, including suggestions for a comprehensive program of exchanging students between the City and suburban districts. Adams v. U.S., 620 F.2d 1277 (8th Cir. 1980). As Attorney General, I did not ask the Supreme Court to review this decision, believing on sound legal grounds that no interdistrict remedy could be imposed without a finding of interdistrict liability.

On remand, the District court ordered a comprehensive plan with both intradistrict and interdistrict relief. Paragraph 12(c) required mandatory interdistrict busing. The State was required to pay 50% of the costs of the interdistrict plan as a remedy for an intradistrict violation. It is important to note that although the District Court found that the State was a "primary constitutional wrongdoer" as it related to the intra district violations, it did not find any State liability for the interdistrict violations.

I appealed the case on behalf of the State of Missouri - eight years after the original case was filed - on three grounds: (1) The interdistrict remedy exceeded the scope of the State's liability; (2) No liability was found against the suburban school districts because they were not parties to the case; and (3) No interdistrict violation was determined by the Court. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision, in party by characterizing Paragraph 12(c) - the mandatory interdistrict busing requirement - as a mere suggestion.

On remand, in January 1981, the suburban school districts were added as defendants. The District Court realigned the St. Louis School Board as a plaintiff, and scheduled a trial for March 1983. In August 1982 - six months before the trial date - the District Court informed the parties that if the suburban districts were found liable, the court would order mandatory busing and consolidate City District with suburban school districts. The District Court's threat, made before a hearing and without the benefit of evidence, had its intended effect: The suburban districts approached the St. Louis School Board and, without consultation with my client, the State of Missouri, agreed to settle the case on the condition that the State of Missouri fund the bulk of interdistrict busing, magnet schools, and St. Louis School District improvements to which these parties agreed without the State's approval.

The State of Missouri objected on the basis that there had been no trial to determine interdistrict liability. The basis for the objection was that the State could not impose a settlement on a non-consenting defendant. In addition, sound legal principles announced by the United States Supreme Court in Milliken I dictated that a finding of interdistrict liability must exist before a court could impose an interdistrict remedy. Further, Milliken II required a narrowly tailored interdistrict remedy to fit the nature and extent of interdistrict liability. Such narrow tailoring would be difficult in the absence of a trial to determine the nature and extent of interdistrict liability.

The State of Missouri submitted its own plan to resolve the case, focusing on remedying the only liability that a court had found - the vestiges of segregation in the St. Louis School District. The District Court rejected Missouri's plan to remedy the only liability that had been found - namely, the intradistrict violation.

Despite the State of Missouri's legal argument that the consent decree conflicted with Supreme Court precedent, the District Court approved the consent decree imposing an interdistrict remedy, even in the absence of a finding of interdistrict liability. The State of Missouri appealed the order. On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court did not accept certiorari.

In sum, I never advised my client to ignore valid federal orders. I was never found in contempt of any court. I always directed that the State of Missouri participate in good faith in annual budget negotiations to fund the plan, and subsequent appeals were designed only to reach a resolution of matters that our negotiations could not resolve.

Details of the Kansas City Litigation: In the case involving Kansas City, the suit was filed against both the City and suburban districts. After trial, the District Court ruled that there was no interdistrict violation of the law and dismissed the Kansas City suburban school districts.

The District Court did find that the State and the Kansas City School District were guilty of intradistrict violations.

Despite my disagreement with the methods chosen by the District Court to remedy the vestiges of segregation in the Kansas City School District, I cooperated with final orders of the courts without fail. I was publicly attacked by the then-treasurer of the State of Missouri, a Democrat, as being too willing to spend the state's funds on federal court orders. Indeed, when the treasurer, considered withholding payments ordered by the District Court, I worked with that official to arrange a system that would alleviate his concerns and assure that the State of Missouri would obey the court's desegregation orders.

Q. You also implied that you did not resist or subvert any court orders. In response to one of my questions, you testified:

"In all of the cases where the court made an order, I followed the order, both as attorney general and as governor. It was my judgment that when the law was settled and spoken that the law should be obeyed."

In 1980, the district court ordered you to submit a plan for desegregation within 60 days. Did you comply with that order and submit a plan within 60 days? After the 60 days, did you eventually submit a desegregation plan for the court's consideration? If so, please attach a copy of that plan. Did the court accept that proposal as a good faith attempt to propose a solution to desegregation of the St. Louis schools?

Please see answer above.

Q. Do you believe that state and local governments that actively maintained a segregated school system in the past have an affirmative duty to actively desegregate the school system? In your view, is it sufficient for a government that has maintained segregated schools to simply repeal the laws which required segregation? If not, what additional steps must be taken?

Absolutely. I strongly oppose segregation. I believe it is wrong and it is unconstitutional. I support integration, and believe that we should take active steps to tear down barriers to integration and to extend full opportunity to all children.

Q. Do you view Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as an important tool through which the Justice Department can continue protecting the voting rights of minority citizens in this country?

Yes.

Q. Do you see Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as an important tool in the battle to protect equal voting rights in this country?

Yes.

Q. As Attorney General, will you continue to enforce the "discriminatory effects" standard under the Voting Rights Act?

I will follow the law on voting rights, as established by the Supreme Court. Voting is a fundamental civil right. If fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will work to aggressively and vigilantly enforce federal voting rights laws. It will be a top priority of a Bush Department of Justice, part of what I would hope would be its legacy.

Q. Are you willing to vigorously enforce Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act which requires the ballots and other election-related materials be translated in certain areas of the country where a number of citizens are limited English proficient?

I will follow the law on voting rights, and will vigorously enforce the Voting Rights Act in its entirety.

Q. As Attorney General, how will you decide when to ask the Supreme Court to overrule a precedent with which you disagree, and when to argue for the preservation of that precedent?

As Attorney General, I do not believe it would be appropriate to seek the reversal of any Supreme Court decisions in a vacuum. As cases arise, I will, if confirmed, thoroughly review the law and facts of each and every one, and determine what positions of advocacy are consistent with the law and in the best interests of the United States. My approach will take into account the important role that stare decisis plays in the rule of law and will be law-oriented, and not results-oriented.

Q. In 1990, as Governor of Missouri, you vetoed a bill that would have provided up to eight weeks of unpaid maternity leave for mothers of new babies or adopted children under the age of three who worked for employers of 50 or more employees. [SB 542, vetoed July 13, 1990.] In your veto message, you said the bill would "put Missouri employers at a competitive disadvantage with similar businesses" in states that did not have similar legal protections, and suggested you might support such a bill if it "originate[d] from the federal government." Today, of course, there is such a bill, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA) - a law that was passed with large bipartisan majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The Justice Department has participated in litigation involving enforcement of the FMLA by state employees, arguing that Congress was well within its authority under the 14th Amendment in authorizing state employees to sue to enforce their rights under the federal law. If you are confirmed as Attorney General, will you continue to argue in the courts that state employees can sue to enforce the federal Family and Medical Leave Act?

I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to comment on pending litigation, but my approach to the Family and Medical Leave Act, as to all other statutes passed by Congress, will be to defend the Act so long as a good-faith and conscientious basis exists for doing so.

Q. During your testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, you said you do not believe the Supreme Court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade. If the composition of the Supreme Court changes during the next four years, would you support efforts to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade?

As I said at the hearing, I accept Roe and Casey as the settled law of the land. I don't think it's the President's agenda, nor would it be my agenda, to seek an opportunity to overturn Roe or Casey.

Q. During your testimony, you said, "Roe v. Wade defined a setting, which said that abortions were not to be regulated - or not to be forbidden, but it left a very, very serious gap in the health care system regarding reproductive health services." You went on to say, "Now, you've criticized me because I said that I would uphold the law and the Constitution of the United States, and then I did things to define the law by virtue of lawsuits. I did things to refine the law when I had an enactment role, which is the job of a governor when he signs things into the law." (emphasis added)

In your opinion, beyond the issue of partial-birth abortion, what specific issues remain undefined or unrefined under Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey?

The President has said that he will provide leadership to take positive, practical steps to reduce the number of abortions, including ending partial-birth abortions, helping women in crisis through maternity group homes, encouraging adoption, promoting abstinence education, and passing laws requiring parental notification and waiting periods. If the Congress passes legislation along these lines, it will be my obligation as Attorney General to defend that legislation, so long as a good-faith and conscientious basis exists for doing so. The case law in this area, as in every, develops on a case-by-case basis, and I cannot anticipate every question that could arise concerning the scope and reach of the governing decisions. However, I can assure you that to the extent the questions arise in the context of legislation passed by this Congress I will defend the constitutionality of the legislation, so long as a good-faith and conscientious basis exists for doing so.

Q. Most legislation regulating abortion includes an exception for cases in which a woman's health may be jeopardized. In your opinion, under existing precedent, what limitations may be placed on health exceptions?

The appropriate exceptions for partial-birth abortion legislation are a matter for the legislature to decide, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. If the Congress passes legislation banning partial-birth abortion, it will be my obligation as Attorney General to defend that legislation, so long as a good-faith and conscientious basis exists for doing so.

Q. While serving as Governor of Missouri, you signed an abortion statute into law, and it became effective in 1986. The statute was challenged, and the Supreme Court accepted the case for review (Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989)). When briefing the Court, the state of Missouri argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. The State asserted "that the values implicit in the Constitution do not compel recognition of abortion liberty as fundamental." Would you explain how that argument "defined" or "refined" the Roe v. Wade decision?

As Governor, I was not the primary draftsman of the state's appellate brief in that case. I am, however, proud of my leadership in enacting that legislation, much of which the Supreme Court explicitly found to be fully consistent with Roe. As Attorney General, my role will not be to enact legislation or sign it into law, but rather to defend legislation that the Congress chooses to enact.

Q. In recent years, numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal courts challenging whether colleges and universities can use race as one among many factors in their admissions policies or scholarship decisions. If confirmed as Attorney General, you will have significant influence over the Bush Administration's legal position in cases like these.

In a case that has received significant publicity, the University of Michigan is currently defending both its undergraduate and law school admissions policies against challenges that they violate the constitution because race is one among many factors considered in admitting students.

At issue in the Michigan cases is whether diversity is a compelling governmental interest in the higher education context. The Department of Justice under the Clinton Administration filed an amicus brief in the case urging the district court: "in considering the motions for summary judgment, to find that the enrollment of a diverse student body is a compelling interest that may justify consideration of race as one of many factors in admissions."

In December of 2000, in the undergraduate suit, federal district Judge Patrick Duggan, appointed by President Reagan, ruled for the University on summary judgment, concluding that: "a racially and ethnically diverse student body produces significant educational benefits such that diversity, in the context of higher education, constitutes a compelling governmental interest under strict scrutiny."

Do you agree with legal position taken by the Department of Justice in an amicus brief in the Michigan case? Please explain your answer.

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will firmly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms. It would, however, be imprudent of me to comment on the particulars of the Michigan case without first conducting a full and fair review of the facts and law surrounding that case. If confirmed, I pledge that no decision will be made absent such a thorough review.

Q. Do you agree with the decision reached on summary judgment by the district court? Please explain your answer.

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will firmly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms. It would, however, be imprudent of me to comment on the particulars of the Michigan case without first conducting a full and fair review of the facts and law surrounding that case. If confirmed, I pledge that no decision will be made absent such a thorough review.

Q. If confirmed, would you direct the Department of Justice on appeal to maintain its position or switch sides in the case and argue that, as a matter of law, diversity is not a compelling interest that may justify the consideration of race as one of many factors in admissions? Please explain your answer.

If confirmed as Attorney General, I will firmly oppose racial discrimination in all its forms. It would, however, be imprudent of me to comment on the particulars of the Michigan case without first conducting a full and fair review of the facts and law surrounding that case. If confirmed, I pledge that no decision will be made absent such a thorough review.

Q. As you know, the Department of Transportation has a number of very successful programs that give qualified minority-owned and women-owned small businesses a fair chance to compete for contracts on federally funded highway projects.

In September 1997, as Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, you held a hearing entitled: "Unconstitutional Set-Asides: ISTEA's Race-Based Set-Asides After Adarand." The title of the hearing clearly demonstrated your hostility to these programs. In your opening remarks, you stated: (1) ". . . it is obvious that ISTEA uses racial classifications in an impermissible way"; (2) ". . . the ISTEA set-asides strike me as an easy case. Their unconstitutionality appears plain . . ."; and (3) "The oath we take to uphold the Constitution gives us an obligation to vote against unconstitutional enactments."

Despite your strong opposition to these equal opportunity programs in Committee and in the full Senate, a majority of the Senate voted in March 1998 to reauthorize them. And several months ago, a unanimous panel of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the exact same programs you had called an "easy case" and criticized as "unconstitutional" were, in fact, constitutional. The Court found specifically that: (1) "Congress has a compelling interest in eradicating the economic roots of racial discrimination in highway transportation programs funded by federal monies"; and (2) "[W]e conclude that the . . . relevant programs . . . meet the requirements of narrow tailoring." (228 F.3d 1147)

Do you believe that the 10th Circuit's decision was wrong? Please explain your answer.

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on pending litigation, although I would note that it is my understanding is that the 10th Circuit reversed the District Court's grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings, rather than finally deciding that the challenged program was, in fact, constitutional. As a general matter, it is likely that some federal race-conscious programs are not constitutional under Adarand. Indeed, my recollection is that even Mr. Lee identified one such program. That being said, it is the longstanding policy of the Department of Justice to defend any federal law for which a reasonable and conscientious defense can be raised. If confirmed, I will enforce this policy in the area of racial set-asides, as in all other areas.

Q. A petition for certiorari has been filed. If you already have concluded that the ISTEA programs are unconstitutional, will you refuse to defend their constitutionality if you are confirmed as Attorney General? Please explain your answer.

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on pending litigation. As a general matter, it is likely that some federal race-conscious programs are not constitutional under Adarand. Indeed, my recollection is that even Mr. Lee identified one such program. That being said, it is the longstanding policy of the Department of Justice to defend any federal law for which a reasonable and conscientious defense can be raised. If confirmed, I will enforce this policy in the area of racial set-asides, as in all other areas.

Q. When James Hormel was nominated to be Ambassador to Luxembourg you had not had a conversation with him in over 30 years. Moreover, you did not attend his confirmation hearing, nor did you ask him any written questions. You also refused his request to meet in person. Yet, when Senator Leahy asked you to explain the reason(s) for your opposition to the nomination, you repeatedly stated that you based your decision on the "totality of the record." Can you explain in detail what specific facts and circumstances comprised the "totality of the record"? If Mr. Hormel's sexual orientation was not one of these facts and circumstances, then why did you fail to afford him an opportunity to respond to your concerns regarding his nomination?

Based on the totality of Mr. Hormel's record of advocacy, I did not believe he would effectively represent the United States in Luxembourg, the most Roman Catholic country in all of Europe. I opposed the confirmation of Ambassador Hormel in committee. That was the extent of the action I took concerning his nomination. Given the pressing demands of fulfilling the responsibilities of a U.S. Senator, there were other interests in the Senate upon which I was primarily focused.

Q. What was the total number of interim judicial appointment you made as Governor of Missouri? What number of these interim appointments were minorities? What number of these interim appointments were women?

There were 70 panels of three individuals submitted by the appropriate commission for appellate and trial court vacancies presented to me as Governor under Missouri's nonpartisan court plan. There was only one African American candidate who was not then or later appointed by me to a current or subsequent judgeship. In effect, eight out of nine available minority candidates were appointed from these panels, including the first African American on the Missouri Court of Appeals and the first African American woman on the St. Louis County Circuit Court.

For counties outside of the nonpartisan court plan, 21 judges were appointed to vacancies until the next election, none of whom was African American. However, our research has found no minority members of the Missouri Bar who expressed an interest in or were available (by virtue of residency) for any of these vacancies for these out-state judgeships which must stand for election every four years for an Associate Circuit Judge, and six years for a Circuit Judge.

Thirteen female judges were appointed to judicial vacancies in both the nonpartisan court plan and out-state areas, including the first female on the Missouri Supreme Court.

INS RESTRUCTURING

Q. As Attorney General, you will have jurisdiction over the Immigration and Naturalization Service, an agency plagued with many problems and in need of reform. President Bush has stated that he supports a comprehensive reform of the INS, similar to legislation Senator Spencer Abraham and I introduced last Congress. This plan would separate the enforcement and service functions of the INS, but keep them under one agency headed by an Associate Attorney General. Maintaining a strong central authority ensures a uniform and coherent immigration policy, resulting in both strong and fair enforcement of our immigration laws, and efficient delivery of immigration services.

As Attorney General, how do you envision balancing the INS's often conflicting missions of enforcement and services? What measures would you propose to ensure adequate funding for the service functions?

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will strongly support the President's proposal to reform the INS comprehensively and divide it into separate service and enforcement agencies. As the President has said, legal immigrants should be welcomed with respect and open arms, and service to legal immigrants should not be delivered with suspicion or hostility. I recognize the important leadership you and Senator Abraham have taken in this regard, and look forward to working with you to implement these reforms.

EXPEDITED REMOVAL

Q. As you know, our nation was largely founded by persons fleeing religious persecution in Europe. Christians and other religious minorities are still suffering serious persecution in many countries around the world. Some of the more fortunate individuals succeed in escaping and are accepted into the U.S. refugee program. Others, seeking asylum in the U.S., are not as fortunate.

Too often, under the present law of expedited removal, immigration officers with no special training in asylum law or human rights conditions in particular countries have the authority to summarily place asylum seekers on the next plane back to the country of their oppressor. These decisions are made with no independent monitoring or judicial review. In many cases, these INS enforcement officers have turned back asylum seekers even though they have expressed clear fear of return.

Is this a fair way to treat people fleeing persecution? As Attorney General, would you support legislation, such as that introduced by Senator Brownback and Senator Leahy, to limit the use of expedited removal?

Although I cannot comment on specific legislation, I believe we should treat those fleeing persecution with compassion and fairness. America was founded as a beacon of hope to the world, and that is a heritage we should continue. I will be happy to work with you and with Senators Brownback and Leahy to ensure that our immigration laws are administered fairly and humanely.

DUE PROCESS

Q. In 1996, Congress tightened the immigration laws. For example, Congress redefined and expanded the types of offenses for which immigrants, including lawful permanent residents, can be deported and applied those definitions retroactively. The new laws also eliminated the ability of immigration judges to consider mitigating factors such as length of time in the U.S., community ties, family hardship, rehabilitation, and even U.S. military service, when deciding whether to deport a person. The laws also removed the ability of the federal courts to review deportation decisions. The result is that longtime, law-abiding immigrants with U.S. citizen spouses and children have been deported for minor offenses committed long ago. These changes seem to violate fundamental principles of family integrity, individual liberty, and due process.

As Attorney General would you support changes in the immigration law that would eliminate the retroactive application of these provisions, restore discretion to immigration judges to make case-by-case determinations, and restore judicial review?

I am certainly troubled by some of the stories that have emerged as a result of the 1996 law. I know that there have been both legislative and administrative attempts to address these kinds of concerns, and I look forward to working with you to see if we can find a way to do so while at the same time allowing for the swift removal of serious or violent criminals.

SECRET EVIDENCE

Q. The INS is currently using secret evidence - undisclosed classified information - to deny bond, asylum, and other immigration benefits to non-citizens, who it claims are risks to national security. President Bush has called this an unfair practice and spoke favorably during the Presidential debates of a bill I co-sponsored last year with Senator Abraham - the Secret Evidence Repeal Act. In 1995, you voted for a Specter amendment (No. 1250) to the Comprehensive Terrorism Prevention Act of 1995 that would require the Attorney General to provide an unclassified summary of the reasons for the initiation of deportation proceedings against a person, where classified information justifying the deportation is not disclosed. Although this amendment was adopted, the provision was ultimately dropped from the final legislation.

Do you agree with President Bush that such secret evidence is unfair? Would you support the Secret Evidence Repeal Act - which President Bush spoke favorably of during the Presidential debates?

I am troubled by some of the stories I have heard about the use of secret evidence and believe that such uses must be reconciled with Due Process. While I cannot comment on specific legislation, I look forward to working with you to find a way, consistent with national security, to protect the rights of citizens and aspiring citizens coming to our nation.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE-BASED PERSECUTION

Q. Human rights organizations and women's rights advocates have been working for many years to obtain recognition for gender-related asylum claims under U.S. refugee and asylum law. This recognition is consistent with the growing body of international human rights law and the sentiment of the international community. Canada, Britain, Australia and New Zealand recognize gender-based asylum claims, including asylum protection for victims of domestic violence.

Last month, Attorney General Reno and the INS Commissioner proposed regulations establishing a broad analytical framework for the consideration of asylum claims based on membership in a particular social group, including the recognition that victims of domestic violence may qualify for asylum. These regulations provide generally applicable principles that will govern the case-by-case adjudication of gender-based claims, including those based on domestic violence or other serious harm inflicted by non-state actors.

The Department of Justice is receiving comments from human rights groups and women's rights groups, praising the broad approach in the proposed regulations and suggesting improvements to ensure the fair adjudication of gender-based asylum claims, including domestic violence claims.

What direction will you provide as Attorney General to ensure that the broad analytical framework set forth by these proposed regulations is followed in the final regulations issued by a Department of Justice under your leadership?

Although I have not reviewed these specific proposed regulations, I believe we should treat those fleeing persecution with compassion and fairness. My commitment to fighting domestic violence and violence against women is longstanding, and I will maintain that commitment wholeheartedly at the Department of Justice. I will be happy to work with you to ensure that our immigration laws are administered fairly and humanely, in this and other respects.

Q. You have testified that as Attorney General it will be your obligation to defend the laws as enacted by Congress. In 1998 the House and the Senate, by bipartisan majorities, reauthorized the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. In 2000, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reversed the district court in the Adarand v. Slater case and upheld the constitutionality of the program. (228 F.3d 1147). A petition for certiorari has been filed. As Attorney General, will defend this case in the Supreme Court and defend the program against other legal challenges by those who oppose to race-conscious affirmative action?

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on pending litigation. As a general matter, it is the longstanding policy of the Department of Justice to defend any federal law for which a reasonable and conscientious defense can be raised. If confirmed, I will enforce this policy in the area of racial set-asides, as in all other areas.

Q. When you answered questions from Senator Leahy about the Bill Lann Lee hearings and the Adarand decision on the first day of the hearings, you referred to a Federal District Court opinion in the Adarand case. Were you aware that the decision you cited had been reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit?

If you were aware of the 10th Circuit decision in Adarand, please explain why you cited the District Court case in your testimony.

If you were unaware of the 10th Circuit opinion, how does the decision change your view on the constitutionality of race-conscious affirmative action programs in general and the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in particular?

My understanding is that the 10th Circuit reversed the District Court's ruling on summary judgment and has remanded for further proceedings, but has not definitively ruled that the statute is constitutional. In any event, the 10th Circuit decision post-dated both the Constitution Subcommittee's hearing on set-asides and the Bill Lann Lee vote and so my explanation for my positions at those times was informed by the District Court's summary judgment ruling. Although the District Court decision informed my thinking at the time of the ISTEA hearing, the 10th Circuit's more recent decision will inform my thinking as Attorney General, if I am confirmed by the Senate.

Q. In your testimony, you quoted a portion of the Adarand district court opinion in which the judge stated that he found it "difficult to envisage" a race-conscious program that would be narrowly tailored. Did you agree with the district court that the "compelling interest" portion of the test was met by Congress's examination of discrimination in the transportation industry?

It would be inappropriate for me to comment on pending litigation. I can say that there is much the government can do to ensure affirmative access in the transportation industry. As a general matter, it is likely that some federal race-conscious programs are not constitutional under Adarand. Indeed, my recollection is that even Mr. Lee identified one such program. That being said, it is the longstanding policy of the Department of Justice to defend any federal law for which a reasonable and conscientious defense can be raised. If confirmed, I will enforce this policy in the area of racial set-asides, as in all other areas.

Q. Please identify each and every amicus brief which you or persons working under your direction authored or joined at any time during your tenure as Senator, Governor or Attorney General.

I have not maintained specific records of amicus briefs prepared or joined by me or my staff during my 26-year career in public service. During that time, numerous briefs were filed. Indeed, in some cases, the varying positions of entities to which the Attorney General's office provided legal service required the office to file multiple briefs. Because these briefs were filed in courts of law, they are matters of public record.

Q. In employment discrimination, the Supreme Court has held that race-conscious relief and gender conscious relief are sometimes the only effective form of relief for past discrimination, or to prevent ongoing discrimination. See U.S. v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149 (1987)(race); Johnson v. Transportation Agency of Santa Clara Co., 480 U.S. 616 (1987)(sex).

Do you agree that race-conscious and gemder-conscious relief are sometimes necessary and appropriate means of combating employment discrimination?

Yes.

Q. As Attorney General, would you continue the current policy of the Justice Department to seek race-conscious or gender-conscious relief in appropriate cases?

I would support race-conscious or gender-conscious relief in cases it was consistent with the requirements of law.

Q. As Attorney General, would you attempt to reopen any cases with existing court orders that include race-conscious or gender-conscious relief?

If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed as Attorney General, I will assess case strategy in particular matters on a case-by-case basis, conferring with the experienced professionals at the Department of Justice, and make judgments based on the law and the facts of each specific case.