I spent fifteen years of my professional career as a prosecutor, as a U.S. attorney, in the Department of Justice. It is an institution for which I have the highest respect that I can express. The goal of equal justice under law is one of the highest and most valuable ideals any nation can have. I am convinced that this nation's strength is because of our legal system, our pursuit of truth and accuracy and fairness in giving everybody their day in court.

We need to give nominees here their day in court. And if we do, John Ashcroft will be found to be a sterling nominee. The complaints that are made against him collapse in the face of the facts. And I believe that is plain and accurate. I think that is an accurate statement. It disappoints me to hear people persist in pursuing objections and complaints that, if fairly looked at and considered objectively, are not meritorious.

Before I make my general remarks—and I will just respond to a few things that have been said—I would like to have printed in the Record a letter that was published in the Washington Post today. I ask unanimous consent to have that printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

[From the Washington Post, January 31, 2001]

CONFIRM JOHN ASHCROFT ALAMERICA BANK, Birmingham, Alabama January 31, 2001

TO MEMBERS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE:

I am an African-American from Birmingham, Alabama. I live in a state known around the world for its long and ugly history of racial segregation and pervasive discrimination.

I am a former National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) trial attorney and a staunch supporter of each organization's mission and goals. After graduating from law school in 1973, I spent the next two decades litigating and winning landmark school desegregation, fair housing, and equal employment opportunity cases for the NAACP and SCLC. In 1976, I obtained a full and complete pardon from the state of Alabama for Mr. Clarence Norris, the last known surviving "Scottsboro Boy."

I voted for former President Bill Clinton twice and supported him in his fight against impeachment. I also voted for Al Gore and Joe Lieberman last fall. I am a political independent who assesses a political candidate or appointee's fitness for office based upon the content of his character—NOT his party affiliation.

I believe it is time for the United States Senate to confirm John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Here is why:

1. As a former governor and U.S. senator, John Ashcroft may have played political hardball, but he is not a racist.

When John Ashcroft was first nominated to be Attorney General, I read the newspaper stories about his successful effort to defeat the federal judgeship nomination of Missouri Supreme Court Justice, Ronnie White. I was highly concerned. I watched the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. There, I saw a different story. I learned that Messrs. White and Ashcroft were skillful and brilliant players at the game of legislative hardball.

Mr. White, while a state legislator, used his powerful committee chairmanship position to engage in political jousting with then Governor Ashcroft. Years later, Mr. Ashcroft continued the jousting by using his influence as a senator to defeat Mr. White's nomination to become a federal district judge.

The defeat of Justice White was hardball, not racism. Mr. White himself testified that John Ashcroft was not a racist.

2. It is time for America to have an Attorney General who will enforce the law equally and fairly for all Americans.

As Black Americans, we see the problem of crime in America up close and personal. Black Americans are among its greatest victims. For us, it is particularly important that the enforcement of our law be strong, effective and fair.

Mr. Ashcroft has also promised to investigate all alleged voting rights violations, particularly those lodged in Florida in the aftermath of last fall's election. We expect him to prosecute any criminal violations if federal laws protecting voting rights were broken in Florida.

3. It is time to restore civility and dignity to the Senate confirmation process.

Americans have watched the Senate confirmation process deteriorate over the years since the Robert Bork nomination in 1987. What used to be a calm exploration of a nominee's qualifications often now becomes a trial by ordeal. Both political parties decry the so- called "politics of personal destruction" and then eagerly employ it. Special interest groups on all sides regard a confirmation battle as a fund-raising opportunity and a test of strength, regardless of its impact on the nominee. A vote for John Ashcroft will not, in itself, restore civility to the confirmation process, but it will help.

It is time for all Americans to stop fighting the outcome of last fall's election and give President Bush a chance to govern. President Bush has selected a diverse and inclusive cabinet. We must give his team an opportunity to lead this nation. If Mr. Ashcroft does not live up to his commitment to enforce our federal laws on an even-handed basis, we can deal with that in the political arena at a later date. Until then, we should respect President Bush's choice for Attorney General.

Sincerely, Donald V. Watkins Founder and Chairman

Mr. President, the letter was paid for by Donald V. Watkins of Birmingham, Alabama. He is one of Alabama's most prominent African American leaders, and he is an attorney. I went to law school with Don.

He has been an active Democrat. He says in his letter that he supported the Gore-Lieberman ticket this time. He has been a lawyer for the NAACP and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a trial attorney, and "a staunch supporter of each organization's missions and goals."

Don says it is time for us to restore civility and dignity to the Senate confirmation process. In effect, he says that President Bush has been elected. He made some promises. He promised to have a more diverse Cabinet. This civil rights advocate, this skilled lawyer says that he has followed those commitments and that what the African American community should do is to insist that he follows the other commitments he made and judge him on what he does, because he is the President, and we should give him a fair chance to succeed.

He says John Ashcroft should be confirmed. Quoting from the letter:

Americans have watched the Senate confirmation process deteriorate over the years since the Bork nomination in 1987. What used to be a calm exploration of a nominee's qualifications now often becomes a trial by ordeal. A vote for John Ashcroft will not, in itself, restore civility to the confirmation process, but it will help.

Don Watkins says:

It is time for all Americans to stop fighting the outcome of last Fall's election and give President Bush a chance to govern. President Bush has selected a diverse and inclusive cabinet. We must give this team an opportunity to lead this nation. If Mr. Ashcroft does not live up to his commitment to enforce our federal laws on an even-handed basis, we can deal with that in the political arena at a later date. Until then, we should respect President Bush's choice for Attorney General.

I think that says it well. I had no advance notice of this. I had no idea this would appear from this fine and skilled advocate for equal rights in America.

I want to share a few matters that are important to correct. They have been repeated so often; I believe they are so incorrect that they ought to be responded to. First, in this town, people know who are honest and truthful—people who tell the truth, people who are straight shooters—it is pretty well known. And it is known those who cannot be trusted. There are not many you would trust on almost any matter whatsoever. John Ashcroft, though, is that kind of person. You have heard people say that repeatedly today and in days past. They know him. They respect him. He is a man of integrity, a man of religious faith, yes, a leader in his denomination, a man who is broadly respected all over America for the very qualities that are so much in need today.

If anybody reads my mail and listens to the comments I am receiving from people with a longing and a deep concern about their country, that a man of this quality is beaten up and attacked and dismembered, in effect, while at the same time we have the same members of this body who have been steadfastly and tenaciously defending the kind of spin that has gone on in this town that led to impeachment and other matters, they are having a difficult time comprehending that.

Anyway, we are here. People have had their day. They have been able to appear at the hearing and present their charges. We, as senators, are supposed to weigh them. It is all right. I believe in free debate. Nobody should be stifled—they ought to have their say. But we are not run here by special interest groups. Handgun Control does not control in this body. We take an oath to obey the law and to do justice here, not to kowtow to every group who builds up a campaign to pressure members of this body to vote the way they want, threaten them that they won't support them in primary elections in the future, and otherwise make their lives miserable in every way they possibly can to get them to vote a certain way. They have a right to write and threaten and say they are not going to vote for somebody. It is a free country. But we, as senators, have a right and a duty and a responsibility to do the right thing.

I know there are some conservative groups who tried to pressure Chairman Hatch on some issues. He said: We are willing to listen to you and have your input, but I am a senator. I happen to chair this committee. As long as I chair the committee, we are going to do this fairly and above board and no interest group is going to have an undue influence in how I do my job.

That is a fact. People know that here. We need to remember that as we go forward with this process.

One of the charges that has been made that is somewhat complicated, but at bottom is very simple, is this charge that John Ashcroft opposed integration. That is a bad thing to say. He came before the committee and looked us all in the eye and said: I support integration; I do not oppose integration. He said what he opposed was a federal court plan that was extreme, in my view and in the view of a lot of legal scholars, to create a massive federal intervention in the educational systems of Kansas City and St. Louis, Missouri. In fact, the federal court plans ordered an additional $3 billion in funding to be spent to carry out these plans. A lot of it was for busing; a lot of it was for other activities.

This was a big deal. His predecessor opposed that court activity. His successor opposed it. His second successor opposed it. His second successor as attorney general was Jay Nixon, with whom I served when I was attorney general of Alabama. Jay Nixon opposed this. He is a Democrat and was supported by two members of this body in his effort to run for the U.S. Senate while he was resisting this litigation in the state. Why would we want to oppose that?

The wording the complainers have used is that he opposed voluntary court desegregation or voluntary desegregation in Missouri.

Let me tell my colleagues how that happens. I was attorney general of Alabama. I have been through this. It is a common thing in America, as we try to deal with the vestiges of segregation. Some of it was legal. Some of it has been by just the nature of the residences that segregation occurred, and various efforts have been made to deal with this.

It has been said: How did he oppose voluntary desegregation?

This is what happened. Plaintiffs sued St. Louis and Kansas City. They sued the suburbs, and they got to court and claimed the school system is segregated by design, in effect. They object to it. They want it to end. The school systems resist, and the litigation goes on. And the judge in this case essentially suggested or indicated that he just might render an order that would eliminate all the suburban cities and merge them—at least their school systems—merge them with the St. Louis school system. We would just have one big school system. That is just what he might do, he said.

So threatened with their very educational system at stake, they voluntarily, under those kinds of threats, agreed to a plan to spend a massive amount of money to bus students around in an effort to achieve racial balance, which the judge was pushing to make happen.

They said: By the way, state of Missouri, you pay for it. We run our school system here, the city of St. Louis runs theirs, but we want you to pay the cost of this.

The attorney general of the state of Missouri was the one person who had a responsibility and a duty, the lawyer for all the people of Missouri, to question whether or not citizens all over the state ought to pay for this kind of massive plan.

He objected to that. He resisted as did two of his successors who resisted it. In fact, one of the most infamous of all court plans was because a Federal judge ordered one of the school districts to raise taxes to pay for his idea of the school.

That is what we are talking about—a consent decree. I have seen them. They will sue the prison system. The prison system will put up a little defense, or the mental health system, or the school system will, and they will go in and say: Judge, I guess you are right. Order the state of Alabama to give more money to run the prison. Order the state of Alabama to give more money to the mental health system because these are the people who would like to have more money because it is their system they are running, and they don't have an objective position. The attorney general is the one who has to represent the entire state and to question what is happening.

Let me tell you why an attorney general has a particular duty to resist. He has a particular duty because this unelected lifetime-appointed federal judge who is saying he is going to abolish the school district and consolidate them into one, who is taking an action that violates the Constitution of the state of Missouri—violates the statutory laws of the state of Missouri, violates the duly elected school boards and districts, and the school boards' authority given to them by the people of the state of Missouri and people in that district. And he is going to rip all of that apart and impose his will on how education ought to be conducted in the targeted community in that state.

Do you see how important this is for a principal attorney general. He should resist and defend unless it is absolutely clear that there is no other way that a constitutional deprivation can be ended. He should resist the compromise of the Constitution and laws of his state, as did his predecessor and as did his two successors. To say those acts of principal resistance to a federal evisceration of the local educational scheme demonstrates lack of concern for children or somebody who wants to maintain segregation is just plain wrong. We ought not to twist those kinds of things today into that sort of mentality. I don't like that.

There is one more thing I will mention—the Bill Lann Lee nomination, although I could do this on almost every allegation that is before us.

Bill Lann Lee was opposed not just by John Ashcroft. He failed to come out of the Judiciary Committee on a tie vote, 9 to 9. I am not aware that John even spoke about it. Perhaps he did, but I do not know what he said. I do remember that I spoke against the Lee nomination. I remember Chairman Hatch of the Judiciary Committee made an eloquent argument against Mr. Lee.

I would like to mention a couple of things about that. Oh, Mr. Lee, is so terribly pitiful, that he has just been put upon and he has been abused, is what they would say.

But let me tell you. We had a full hearing on the Adarand case. We had a hearing on that. Mrs. Adarand even came. Adarand, for purposes of background, is the case that sets out the law for quotas in America. They said you can't have racial set-asides and quotas. Mr. Lee refused to acknowledge the real meaning of Adarand.

He said he would support Adarand, but when questioned in detail, he defined it in such a way that it was clear that the chief of the Civil Rights Division would not support the principle that Adarand stated. That is why the chairman of the Judiciary Committee opposed it. He made something like a 15-page speech on this floor and delineated in high style and with great legal expertise why this was important and why he reluctantly opposed this nomination. He did not attack--nor did any of one of us at any time attack—the character of Bill Lann Lee. We simply said that we believed he did not understand the meaning of that case and would not follow the law of the United States and, as such, that he should not be confirmed.

That is what happened. To suggest that John Ashcroft went out of his way to block this nominee is just one more statement that is inaccurate and unfair to the good and decent man whom I believe will soon be Attorney General and whom I am confident will be one of the greatest Attorneys General in the history of this nation. People are going to appreciate him. He will restore dignity. He will restore integrity. He will bring personal probity and decency to that office and will, I believe, be greatly respected when he concludes.

Mr. President, I have received a statement from the editor of the Southern Partisan magazine that has been attacked here to some degree. I have never read the magazine. But it is a refutation of many of the statements made about the magazine. It certainly is proof that the magazine is in a much better light than it has been reported to be here on the floor.

I note that Senator Ashcroft, when he was interviewed by it, simply did a telephone interview with the magazine. There was no evidence he ever read it, or saw it, or knew much about it.

I think it would be healthy for the statement of Chris Sullivan, editor of the Southern Partisan, to be made part of the Record in which he flatly denies that he favored, or the magazine favored, segregation or other kinds of racially—discriminatory activities.

I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

SOUTHERN PARTISAN

January 11, 2001

FROM: Chris Sullivan, Editor RE: Refutation of false reports now being circulated about Southern Partisan magazine in an effort to damage John Ashcroft

A number of false reports are circulating in the national press, alleging that Southern Partisan is a "racist," "segregationist," "secessionist," or "white-supremacist" magazine. This is part of an orchestrated effort to embarrass Senator John Ashcroft for having once been interviewed by our magazine.

Most of the distortions can be traced to an article by Benjamin Soskis in the New Republicwhich contained a series of factual errors and distortions extracted from any sense of fair or accurate context, some of which were clearly malicious. People for the American Way subsequently loaded all of those gross distortions onto their web page. After that, reporters and editorial writers for mainstream outlets covering the presidential primary reported the errors as if they were factual.

For those who may be interested in the facts, I have assembled the following item-by-item refutation of these false reports:

1. Senator JOE BIDEN said on Meet the Press that Southern Partisan is "a white- supremacist magazine, or so I've been told." Others have labeled us "neosegregationist" and "racist."

Those charges are absolutely false. In twenty years of publication, our journal has never advocated segregation, white-supremacy or any form of racism. Indeed one of our central purposes is to defend the South against such stereotypical and reactionary attacks. Our editors and contributors have included highly respected writers, academics and journalists like Russell Kirk, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Murray Rothbard, Walter Williams, Anthony Harrigan, Kenneth Cribb, J.O. Tate, Andrew Lytle, Cleanth Brooks, and many others.

2. The allegation that John Ashcroft's interview is somehow disreputable. A simple listing of others who have been interviewed in our "Partisan Conversation" section (which is where Ashcroft appeared) should suffice to rebut this silly charge. Other interviewees include NBC weatherman Willard Scott, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, civil rights activist James Meredith, poet laureate James Dickey, and political leaders like Senators Trent Lott, Phil Gramm, Jesse Helms and Thad Cochran as well as Ashcroft (a list of other interviewees is attached).

3. The allegation that our magazine "praises" David Duke. Absolutely not true. Twelve years ago, when Duke was running for office in Louisiana, he claimed he had converted to Christianity, renounced his past Klan involvement and campaigned on a mainstream conservative platform. At that time, we published a column defending the people of Louisiana for taking Duke at his word. As it turned out, Mr. Duke was deceiving everyone. In subsequent years he was rejected by he voters of Louisiana, which was a happy ending. (I have attached the full column in question, which is now twelve years old, to show just how the meaning was twisted by the out-of-context quote. Item 1 shows he quote extracted by "researchers" seeking to damage the magazine. Item 2 makes the true meaning clear).

4. The allegation that our magazine defends slavery. Again, that outrageous idea got started by the New Republic. The quote offered to "prove" we defend slavery was taken from a book review of a scholarly work on slavery called Time on the Cross. (Robert Fogel and Stanley Engerman) One of the findings of that book (based on plantation economic records) was that slave families were not frequently broken up, contrary to what was then a general view. Breaking up slave families was bad for morale and therefore bad for business. In preparing this memo, I consulted Dr. Walter Edgar's recent book on the history of South Carolina, which has been widely praised. Dr. Edgar is not a Republican or a conservative. The 1998 edition of his book has this to say on page 317: "Owners realized that it was to their advantage to encourage stable slave family life ..... Slaves who had families were less likely to run away....." Obviously, in no way is such a point intended to justify or defend slavery, which was a terrible national tragedy. The point the reviewer hoped to make was that slavery was bad enough without being exaggerated.

5. The allegation that our magazine engages in ethnic slurs. The quote most often offered to prove this allegation was taken from a column Reid Buckley, William F.'s brother, wrote for us 17 years ago. Here is what the New Republic reported that Mr. Buckley had written:

"In 1987 the magazine offered a vision of South African history straight from the apartheid- era textbooks: ‘God led [Afrikaners] into the Transvaal, it was with God that they made their prayerful covenant when they were besieged by bloodthirsty savages on all sides.' "

Here is the actual text from which the quote was dishonestly extracted:

"Then what demon has provoked their hateful policies? Well, not demon, it transpires upon reading a little South African history. God Almighty. In their view. [Emphasis in the original] God led them into the Transvaal, it was with God that they made their prayerful covenant when they were besieged by bloodthirsty savages on all side."

It is obvious to even the most casual reader that Mr. Buckley is actually criticizing the "hateful policies" of apartheid, not defending them. The New Republic article extracted a partial quote that completely reversed the author's meaning. We can only assume that the distortion is deliberate. Why else would the New Republic writer have lifted only a portion of the passage?

6. The allegation that our magazine sells hateful t-shirts and bumper strips, including a shirt with Lincoln's image and the legend "sic semper tyrannis" which are the words Booth uttered before he shot Lincoln.

There is a web site called pointsouth.com that apparently sells a variety of Southern novelty items including bumper strips. We have no ties whatsoever with that web site. For a time, pointsouth.com carried a link to our web site. When we discovered that they were selling bumper strips with messages we found to be tasteless, we asked that the link be deleted. It was.

As to the Lincoln "Sic semper tyrannis" t-shirt: that tasteless item has never been advertised or sold on the pages of our magazine. Seven years ago, a part-time staff member of our magazine offered to compile a catalog of Southern items available—from various vendors—such as art prints, books, ties, grits, t-shirts, etc., to raise money to help defray the cost of the magazine. The catalog was compiled and mailed to our readers as a separate brochure, without careful review by our editors. The catalog included a "tree of liberty" t- shirt with the image of an oak tree and a quote from Thomas Jefferson. Apparently the Lincoln image with the sic semper tyrannis logo appeared on the reverse side of the t-shirt. While the slogan was noted in the fine print, that face escaped our attention. Nevertheless, it was advertised in the catalog one time seven years ago. The catalog was canceled soon thereafter. Yes, the Lincoln message was in poor taste. It was a mistake. We regret that it was sold through a catalog our name was briefly associated with. But any effort to hold Senator Ashcroft accountable for that is absurd.

7. The allegation that our magazine is anti-Semitic.

Of all the charges made, this is the single most baseless. I do not believe Southern Partisanhas ever published a single negative comment about Jews. On the contrary, we have published numerous very favorable articles on Jewish Confederates and Judah P. Benjamin, pointing out that the Confederate government had a Jewish member of its cabinet 50 years before the federal government. The charge of anti-Semitism against the magazine is completely unfounded.

8. The allegation that we are hostile to Martin Luther King Day.

Two decades ago, there was widespread opposition to MLK Day among conservatives all over the country. Around that time (18 years ago in fact) we published a column suggesting that other African-Americans in history might be more worthy of elevation to holiday status. Examples of George Washington Carver, Booker T. Washington and General Chappie James were given. Of course, the debate is long over. MLK Day is now accepted as a part of the nation's life. Nothing negative has been written on our pages about MLK Day for the past 18 years. In fact, South Carolina, the state where we publish, recently converted MLK Day from an optional to a free-standing holiday. The son of the writer who wrote that column 18 years ago is a member of the S.C. State Legislature. He voted for the holiday with his Dad's support.

9. The allegation that we are hostile to Nelson Mandela.

Again, the column cited to support that allegation was written over a decade ago. At the time, the idea that Mandela had engaged in violence before his arrest and refused to renounce violence as a precondition to release from jail was widely reported. The views on Mandela expressed a decade ago were conventional for conservative writers from all regions of the country. In subsequent years, Mandela (who is now a respected elder statesman) has changed his mind about violence in the manner of Sadat and Begin.

10. The allegation that our magazine called Lincoln "a consummate liar *.*.*."

The quote was taken from a speech given by the late Murray Rothbard, a respected Jewish intellectual. He was president emeritus of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, speaking at a seminar on the cost of war. The introductory phrase left out of Dr. Rothbard's remarks (which completely alters the meaning) was this: "Of course, Abraham Lincoln was a politician which means he was a consummate liar, manipulator *.*.*" etc. The quote was followed by laughter from those in attendance. In other words, it was a generic insult against politicians intended to be humorous.

The ten slanders listed above are the major ones we have seen in the media for the past six months. There may be others. If so, please let us know so we will have an opportunity to defend ourselves. Our concern is not only with the reputation of our magazine but also with all the people who have written for us or been interviewed by us over the years. They are innocent bystanders in this scorched earth campaign to defeat Sen. Ashcroft. Their reputations are very important to them and to their families. To our dismay, these slanders have metastasized like an aggressive cancer throughout the national news media. In fact, months ago, we sent all of the above corrections to the People for the American Way with a polite request that they correct their web site. They never did. It truly is shocking that there are groups so radically committed to their political agenda that they are willing to destroy reputations falsely in an effort to prevent the appointment to a person they disagree with.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any additional questions (803-254-3660).