[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 10, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-58
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
35-245 WASHINGTON : 2008
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan, Chairman
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California LAMAR SMITH, Texas
RICK BOUCHER, Virginia F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JERROLD NADLER, New York Wisconsin
ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ZOE LOFGREN, California BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
MAXINE WATERS, California DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California
MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts RIC KELLER, Florida
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida DARRELL ISSA, California
LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California MIKE PENCE, Indiana
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
HANK JOHNSON, Georgia STEVE KING, Iowa
LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois TOM FEENEY, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York JIM JORDAN, Ohio
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota
Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MAY 10, 2007
Page
OPENING STATEMENT
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, and Chairman, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 1
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary. 2
WITNESSES
The Honorable Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General, U.S. Department
of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 6
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Article published in The New York Times, May 4, 2007, submitted
by the Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress
from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the
Judiciary...................................................... 39
Article published in the Houston Chronicle, April 5, 2007, and
April 8, 2007, submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary..................................... 59
Letter from Randy Mastro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, submitted by
the Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary...... 64
Articles published in various sources, submitted by the Honorable
Steve King, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Iowa, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary................... 101
Article published in The New York Times, April 16, 2007,
submitted by the Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Wisconsin, and Member, Committee on
the Judiciary.................................................. 160
Articles published in various sources, submitted by the Honorable
Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary.......... 174
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas............. 191
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a
Representative in Congress from the State of California........ 195
Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary and Committee Members
Robert C. Scott, Sheila Jackson Lee, Tammy Baldwin, Luis V.
Guiterrez, and Brad Sherman.................................... 196
Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Lamar Smith, a
Representative in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking
Member, Committee on the Judiciary............................. 222
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Alberto
Gonzales, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice......... 244
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 10, 2007
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:37 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable John
Conyers, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Conyers, Berman, Boucher, Nadler,
Scott, Watt, Lofgren, Jackson Lee, Waters, Delahunt, Wexler,
Sanchez, Cohen, Johnson, Sherman, Weiner, Schiff, Davis,
Wasserman Schultz, Ellison, Baldwin, Smith, Sensenbrenner,
Coble, Gallegly, Goodlatte, Chabot, Lungren, Cannon, Keller,
Issa, Pence, Forbes, King, Feeney, Franks, Gohmert, and Jordan.
Staff present: Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief
Counsel; Joseph Gibson, Minority Chief Counsel; Elliot
Mincberg, Chief Oversight Counsel; and Renata Strause, Staff
Assistant.
Mr. Conyers. Good morning. The Committee will come to
order.
Welcome, everyone.
Mr. Attorney General, I want to thank you for appearing
before us today. It is my hope that the Members will focus
their questions today on the United States attorney
investigation and related matters, and that in the near future
you will come back so that we may exercise our oversight
responsibility, considering the many important issues that
involve the Department of Justice.
I know I speak for every Member of this panel when I say
that we all want the Department of Justice to succeed in its
mission as the premier law enforcement agency in the nation,
and perhaps in the world.
The laws under your jurisdiction, from civil rights, voting
rights, to crime, to antitrust, to bankruptcy and the
environment, are among the most important charters of our
society and are critical to our well-being as a nation and as a
democracy.
At the same time, I am sure we agree, you and I, that any
hint or indication that the department may not be acting fairly
and impartially in enforcing the nation's laws, or in choosing
the nation's law enforcers, has ramifications far beyond the
department itself, and casts doubt upon every action or
inaction your office and your employees take.
So, when we learn that several U.S. attorneys were added to
the termination list only after they decided to pursue criminal
investigations involving Republican officials, or after
complaints that they were not pursuing investigations against
Democrats, we must insist that we understand exactly how this
came into existence and how the list itself of those discharged
came into existence.
When we learn that most of the U.S. attorneys forced to
resign were among the highest rated and most able in the
nation, that they were told that they were being displaced to
create a bigger Republican farm team while others were retained
because they were ``loyal Bushies,'' it creates the impression
that the department has placed partisan interests above the
public interest.
When a respected former career attorney at the Civil Rights
Division testifies that he has been directed to alter
performance evaluations based on political considerations, when
I receive an anonymous letter, apparently from Department of
Justice employees, complaining that candidates for career
positions have been subjected to political litmus tests, and
when the Attorney General has secretly delegated his authority
to hire and fire non-civil service employees, this calls into
question the department's commitment to fair and impartial
justice.
When the White House gives us a take-it-or-leave-it offer
for a one-time, off-the-record interview, without transcripts,
which I have referred to as ``meet us at the pub for fish and
chips so we can talk,'' which no self-respected investigator
would accept, makes open-ended claims of executive privilege,
and loses or destroys millions of e-mails relevant to our
investigation, one asks whether the Administration is trying to
cover up two simple truths: who created the list and why.
And when we learned this morning, page one, Washington
Post, that another U.S. attorney in Missouri was forced out,
contrary to repeated assurances that the eight U.S. attorneys
whose circumstances we have been examining for the past few
months were the entire list, it makes us wonder when we will
get the entire truthful report about this matter.
Now, to those who might say that it is time to move on and
end our investigation, allow me to remind you of a couple
things. The matters that have come to light to date are quite
serious.
Sitting prosecutors have faced political pressure to bring
or not bring cases. Numerous misstatements by senior officials
regarding the firings have been made to Congress. The
reputations of good and honest public servants have been
besmirched. Former U.S. attorneys have been pressed not to
cooperate with our investigation. And the Presidential Records
Act and Hatch Act may have been violated.
But most important of all, however, the department's most
precious asset, its reputation for integrity and independence,
has been called into question. Until we get to the bottom of
how this list was created and why, those doubts will persist.
I am pleased now to turn to the Ranking Member of the House
Judiciary Committee, my friend, the gentlemen from Texas, Mr.
Smith.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And welcome, Mr. Attorney General.
We expect much of this hearing to focus on the U.S.
attorneys controversy. We have investigated this situation for
2 months. We have nearly 10,000 pages of interview transcripts
and documents. The public, the media and Committee staff have
all scoured them.
We have held three hearings, featuring 18 witnesses. We
have had four subpoena markups, and have subpoenaed 12
individuals and many associated documents.
We have held 10 interviews, spanning more than 50 hours. We
will soon hear from Monica Goodling, whose testimony we have
taken the extraordinary step of immunizing. And, of course, we
all have access to the testimony generated in the Senate.
As we have gone forward, the list of accusations has
mushroomed. But the evidence of genuine wrongdoing has not.
Mr. Attorney General, this investigation may find that you
and your staff did only what you were accused of at the start:
the unremarkable and perfectly legal act of considering
ordinary politics in the appointment and oversight of political
appointees.
It amounts to the criminalization of politics, particularly
the partisan criminalizing of the politics of this
Administration.
Mr. Attorney General, you and your staff have stated time
and again that what you tried to undertake was a good
government review of political appointees to identify where new
appointees might do better.
You acknowledged that the White House was involved. Of
course it was. The political appointees were theirs. So were
the political priorities that the department was asked to focus
on, such as gun crime and human trafficking.
By emphasizing that politics affected your motivations,
your political opponents have tried to paint your exercise as
something out of bounds.
I do not want to belittle this controversy. Some serious
questions remain unanswered. But we shouldn't kid ourselves. In
an L.A. Times poll last month, 63 percent of Americans believed
that Congress is pursuing this matter to gain partisan
advantage.
Today is our first opportunity to see you since the tragedy
of Virginia Tech. Two months ago, we marked the third
anniversary of the terrorist attack in Spain. Today, a
terrorist could cross our porous borders in California,
Arizona, New Mexico or Texas carrying deadly weapons.
Six months from now, on the anniversary of September 11th,
I hope we don't find ourselves asking why we spent our time
today asking you more questions about your hiring decisions.
What we need to do is wrap up the U.S. attorneys
controversy. With one exception, we have concluded interviews
of all the major department players in the controversy. We have
you here to answer our questions today. All that is necessary
with respect to the Department of Justice after today is to
hear from Monica Goodling, and we will do that soon.
For nearly 2 months the White House has offered to let us
interview its employees and review its documents. We need to
take that offer now. If we had accepted it, our questions might
have been answered long ago.
Mr. Attorney General, we trust that you will answer our
questions to the best of your ability, and we look forward to
your answers.
But we should not conduct an endless, piscine expedition.
If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines
of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing
issues.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much, Lamar Smith.
We will accept all other Members' opening statements to be
included in the record at this point.
Welcome again, Attorney General Gonzales.
You have held this position since February 2005, and before
that was White House counsel. You enlisted in the Air Force
right out of high school, attending the Air Force Academy,
finishing your undergraduate studies at Rice and earning your
law degree at Harvard. You spent a decade in private practice
at the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins, and then in 1994 to
serve as Governor-elect George Bush's general counsel, then
secretary of state and later Texas Supreme Court justice,
before coming to Washington in 2001.
Mr. Attorney General, we generally allow our witnesses 5
minutes to summarize or augment their written statement. And
yours is included in the record. But because you are here today
under unusual circumstances, we would like to give you
flexibility to speak longer than that, if you care to.
And so we hope that you could address this morning's
revelation at least one other former U.S. attorney belongs on
the list that was forced out, and why we are hearing about the
matter today from The Washington Post.
Again, on behalf of everybody on this Committee, we welcome
you and invite you to proceed in your own way.
Mr. Smith. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. What is happening? Why?
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the rules
governing the decorum of a hearing, I have brought to the
attention of the Chairman the presence of a banner on the
person of an individual placed in a position such that that
person's banner would be revealed every time cameras are on the
witness.
This is not a star chamber. This is supposed to be a
hearing. And I would make my point of order that that is an
illegal protest in these hearings, and ask that the individual
be removed before the Attorney General begins his testimony.
Mr. Conyers. I don't think there is anything wrong with
that.
And I invite the person who is identified to please excuse
herself from these proceedings. This is not a political rally.
And with the right attire, you are perfectly welcome to re-
enter this chamber.
And don't make any statements please. Thank you.
Oh, come on now. We have done this too long. We have spent
far too much time trying to resolve this.
Thanks a lot.
And I want everyone to know in the audience, please, no
signs, no demonstrations, no exercise, for a few hours, of your
first amendment rights when we are having this important
hearing.
Mr. Smith. I thank the Chair.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
I apologize, Mr. Attorney General, and we invite you to
proceed.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ALBERTO GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take less
than the 5 minutes, but I am grateful for the offer.
Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and Members of the
Committee, I have provided the Committee with a rather lengthy
written statement detailing some of the department's work under
my leadership to protect our nation, our children and our civil
rights. I am proud of our past accomplishments in these and
other areas, and I look forward to future achievements.
I am here, however, to answer your questions to the best of
my ability and recollection, not to repeat what I have provided
in writing.
Before we begin, I want to make three brief points about
the resignations of the eight United States attorneys. These
points are basically the same ones that I made before the
Senate Judiciary Committee last month. My feelings and
recollections about this matter have not changed since that
time.
First, as I have said repeatedly, each of those United
States attorneys are fine lawyers and dedicated public
servants. I have publicly apologized to them and to their
families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and
undignified public spectacle, for which I accept full
responsibility.
Second, as I have said before, I should have been more
precise when discussing this matter. I understand why some of
my statements generated confusion, and I have subsequently
tried to clarify my words.
That said, I believe what matters most is that I have
always sought the truth in every aspect of my professional and
personal life. This matter has been no exception.
I have never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or
the American people. To the contrary, I have been extremely
forthcoming with information, and I am here today to continue
to do my part to ensure that all facts about this matter are
brought to light.
Finally, recognizing my limited involvement in the
process--a mistake that I freely acknowledge--I have soberly
questioned my prior decisions. I have reviewed the documents
available to the Congress.
But please keep in mind that in deference to the integrity
of the ongoing investigations, there is some information that I
have not seen that you have seen.
I have also asked the Deputy Attorney General if I should
reconsider my decisions.
What I have concluded is that although the process was not
as rigorous or as structured as it should have been, and while
reasonable people might decide things differently, my decision
to ask for the resignations of these U.S. attorneys was not
based on improper reasons, and, therefore, the decisions should
stand.
I think we agree on what would be improper. It would be
improper to remove a U.S. attorney to interfere with or
influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain.
I did not do that. I would never do that.
Let me conclude by saying that I have learned important
lessons from this experience which will guide me in my
important responsibilities. In recent weeks, I have met or
spoken with all of our U.S. attorneys to hear their concerns.
These discussions have been open and, quite frankly, very
frank. Good ideas were generated and are being implemented.
I look forward to working with these men and women to
pursue the great goals of our department.
I also look forward to working--continuing to work with the
department's career professionals, investigators, analysts,
prosecutors, lawyers and administrative staff, who perform
nearly all of the department's work and deserve the most credit
for our accomplishments.
I want to continue working with this Committee as well. We
have made great strides in protecting our country from
terrorism, defending our neighborhoods against the scourge of
gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators and
preserving the public integrity of our public institutions. I
do not intend to allow recent events to deter us from our
mission.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Prepared statement of Attorney General Gonzales follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Alberto R. Gonzales
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Let me begin the questions.
I want to ask how the U.S. attorney termination list came
to be, who suggested putting most of these U.S. attorneys on
the list, and why.
Now, that is the question that overhangs everything we are
doing here. If we can answer that, I think outside of the
reticence of the White House to cooperate, we would make
incredible gains in trying to put this matter to rest, as the
gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, has suggested we do as soon as
possible.
Tell me about it.
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, I accept full responsibility
for the notion of doing an evaluation of the performance of
United States attorneys.
I think as a matter of good government, we have an
obligation as heads of the department to ensure that public
servants are in fact doing their job.
And therefore, I directed Mr. Sampson--my then deputy chief
of staff, and most recently my former chief of staff--to
coordinate and organize a review of the performance of United
States attorneys around the country.
I expected that Mr. Sampson would consult with the senior
leadership of the department, that he would consult with
individuals who would know about the performance of the United
States attorneys much more than I.
Mr. Conyers. But, Mr. Attorney General, you are the one who
is here at the hearing.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Conyers. You are the one that we talk to as the
Judiciary Committee regularly communicates with the head of the
Department of Justice. I approve and congratulate you on all
those hearings, and investigation.
But just tell me how the U.S. attorney termination list
came to be and who suggested putting most of these U.S.
attorneys on the list and why. Now, that should take about
three sentences, but take more. But tell me something.
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that
what Mr. Sampson engaged in was a process of consulting with
the senior leadership in the department about the performance
of specific individuals, and that toward the end of that
process, in the fall of 2006, what was presented to me was a
recommendation that I understood to be the consensus
recommendation of the senior leadership of the department.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. In other words, you don't know. And I am
not putting words in your mouth, but you haven't answered the
question.
I know the procedure, but look, we have got 30-something
Members of Congress, much of your staff, you have prepared for
this, you have been asked something like this question before
now----
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, as I
have indicated, I have not gone back and spoken directly with
Mr. Sampson and others who are involved in this process, in
order to protect the integrity of this investigation and the
investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and
the Office of Inspector General.
I am a fact witness, they are fact witnesses and in order
to preserve the integrity of those investigations, I have not
asked these specific questions. What I am here today----
Mr. Conyers. Okay, so that is why you are not going to
answer the question, because you want to protect the integrity
of the investigation.
Look, let me ask you a specific example. Mr. Iglesias----
Mr. Gonzales. Iglesias.
Mr. Conyers [continuing]. In New Mexico, who was not put on
the termination list until October or November of 2006, we
learned in last Friday's interview with your counsel, Matthew
Friedrich, at the request of the White House and Monica
Goodling, he met with two prominent New Mexico lawyers who
complained about Mr. Iglesias's handling of a vote fraud case.
He met them again in November. And they told him they
didn't want him--Mr. Iglesias--to be the U.S. attorney. And
then they said they were working toward that, and they had
communicated about that directly with Senator Domenici and Karl
Rove.
Aware of that, are you?
Mr. Gonzales. I am certainly aware of it now.
And if I may, Mr. Chairman, if you are going to rely upon
some testimony that others have provided--again, I haven't
spoken to others about their testimony--could I see what in
fact the testimony has been provided to? Because I haven't seen
it. So----
Mr. Conyers. Just take this recitation that I have just
given you, sir.
We are perfectly willing to let you see anything you want.
We are cooperating. But cooperate with us.
Mr. Gonzales. I am trying, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. So is this correct?
Mr. Gonzales. I have no reason to believe it is not
correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Okay. You were aware of that, then.
Mr. Gonzales. You mean, at the time that I made my
decision?
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Mr. Gonzales. At the time I accepted the recommendation--
Mr. Chairman, I don't recall whether or not I was aware of
that.
But I will tell you this: I was certainly aware of the fact
that the senior senator had lost confidence in Mr. Iglesias
beginning in the fall of 2005, and that we had had several
phone conversations where he had expressed serious concerns or
reservations about the performance of the person that he
recommended for that position.
Mr. Conyers. Yes. And they had communicated directly with
Karl Rove and Senator Domenici. You were aware of that?
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Conyers. No. You are not under oath, and you said you
always tell the truth.
Mr. Gonzales. My answers would be the same, Mr. Chairman. I
want to be sure that I give the Committee the most accurate and
most complete answer that----
Mr. Conyers. Yes. So, what are you saying?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, what I know is----
Mr. Conyers. You need more information and you want to see
the reviews?
Mr. Gonzales. Of course I would like to see exactly what he
said. But I was aware of the fact----
Mr. Conyers. All right.
Mr. Gonzales. At the time I made my decision, I was aware
of the fact, of course, that Senator Domenici, of course, had
called me several times. Mr. Rove, in a conversation that he
had with me, raised concerns about voter fraud prosecutions in
three jurisdictions in the country, including New Mexico. My
recollection is that occurred sometime in the fall of 2006.
I don't have any specific recollection that when I made my
decision I was aware of the specific conversations that Mr.
Friedrich, I believe, may have testified to.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Mr. Lamar Smith, please?
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, let me go to what I consider to be
the heart of the matter and ask you a series of questions.
The first is this: Did you seek the resignation of any U.S.
attorney to retaliate for, interfere with, or gain a partisan
advantage in any case or investigation, whether about public
corruption or any other type of offense?
Mr. Gonzales. I wouldn't do that, Congressman Smith. I
would not retaliate for partisan political reasons. That is not
something that I believe is acceptable, and would not tolerate.
Mr. Smith. Did the White House ever ask you to seek the
resignation of any U.S. attorney in order to retaliate for,
interfere with, or gain a partisan advantage in any case or
investigation, whether about public corruption or any other
offense?
Mr. Gonzales. Not that I recall, Congressman. I don't
believe that the White House ever did.
Mr. Smith. Have you ever intended to mislead or misinform
Congress through any of your statements or testimony about the
U.S. attorneys matter?
Mr. Gonzales. Of course not.
Now, I realize I have been inartful in some of my
statements to the press; overly broad, perhaps, in my zeal to
come out and defend the department. I have said things that I
shouldn't have without first going back and reviewing thousands
of pages of documents.
But in everything that I have done here, the principles
that I have tried to support are truthfulness and being
forthcoming, and accountability. And that is why we have
provided thousands of pages of very internal, deliberative
documents, why we have made DOJ officials available for
interviews and for testimonies: because I want to reassure the
American public and this Committee that nothing improper
happened here.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Attorney General, let me go to my last
question. And feel free to expound on your answer.
Do you believe the U.S. attorneys controversy has caused
any unmerited damage to the Department of Justice and its
ability to effectively pursue its mission of law enforcement?
And if so, how?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, clearly, I mean, it has been an
unfortunate episode. And obviously, it is something that I have
to deal with as head of the department.
I always worry about morale. I think every Cabinet official
every day should wake up thinking about, ``Okay, is the morale
of the department where it should be? Am I doing everything I
can to be the most effective leader of the department?''
And so, of course, that is something that I worry about. I
have indicated, I have spoken to all United States attorneys
about this issue. I have told them, ``Be focused on your job. I
don't expect a single investigation, a single prosecution to be
sped up or slowed down by what is happening here,'' and we will
focus on making sure that Congress is provided the information
that it needs to reassure itself that nothing improper happened
here.
But at the end of the day, what the American people are
focused on, I think--they want to know that the Department of
Justice is doing its part to make sure that our country is safe
from terrorism, is doing our part to make sure that our
neighborhoods are safe from violent crime and doing our part to
make sure that our kids are safe from predators and pedophiles.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
The Chair recognizes the Chairwoman of the Commercial and
Administrative Law Subcommittee, Linda Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Gonzales.
Mr. Gonzales, you have consistently maintained that only
eight U.S. attorneys were forced out of their positions. Yet
today's Washington Post states that there was a ninth, Todd
Graves.
Are there any more U.S. attorneys that we should know about
that were forced out?
Mr. Gonzales. Congresswoman, it is always been my
understanding that this focus has been on the eight United
States attorneys that were asked to resign last December 7th
and June 14th, including Bud Cummins.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect, in
page two of your testimony that you have previously given, you
stated that there were only eight that were forced out.
Mr. Gonzales. As part of this process--as part of this
review process that I asked Mr. Sampson to conduct and which
resulted in the culmination in December of 2006, these were the
individuals that this process identified as where changes would
be appropriate.
Now, clearly, throughout my tenure as Attorney General and
throughout the tenure of my predecessors and other Attorney
Generals, U.S. attorneys have left the department for a variety
of reasons. So that happens.
Ms. Sanchez. Let's stop there. Are you familiar with the
former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Debra Wong Yang?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Ms. Sanchez. And are you aware the she resigned her
position in October of 2006 and took a position with a private
law firm?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I am.
Ms. Sanchez. Do you have information as to whether Ms.
Yang's resignation was entirely voluntary?
Mr. Gonzales. From what I know, Ms. Yang's resignation was
entirely voluntary. She did a wonderful job and----
Ms. Sanchez. Now, are you aware that when Ms. Yang went to
this firm, she received what has been reported as a $1.5
million bonus for joining the private law firm?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't know what she received. But whatever
it was, it was a bargain for the firm because she is an
outstanding lawyer.
Ms. Sanchez. Are you aware of any reason why she would have
been given such an extraordinary bonus payment to hire an
individual like her?
Mr. Gonzales. I suspect that given her outstanding
qualifications, the fact that she is a woman, an Asian-
American, would make her particularly attractive to a private
firm.
Ms. Sanchez. So you think a $1.5 million signing bonus is
typical for a situation like that?
Mr. Gonzales. Again, that is a decision for that firm to
make.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. Are you aware--and this has been
reported in the press--that when she was hired by the firm, Ms.
Yang was conducting an active investigation into Republican
Congressman Jerry Lewis and his financial dealings with a
particular lobbying firm? Were you aware of that?
Mr. Gonzales. I may have been aware of that. Sitting here
today, I can't say that I was aware of that. But that is very
likely.
We have public corruption investigations and prosecutions
that are occurring every day all over the country,
Congresswoman. So it would not be unusual that such----
Ms. Sanchez. Well, let me tell you what concerns me. What
concerns me are the reports of the same firm that hired Ms.
Yang away from her post as a U.S. attorney, with a large bonus
payment, also, coincidentally, happens to be the firm that
represents Mr. Lewis in this matter. Does that coincidence
trouble you at all?
Mr. Gonzales. Not at all, because, again, what we have to
remember is that for--the American people need to understand
this--is that these investigations are not run primarily by the
United States attorneys. They are handled by assistant United
States attorneys, career prosecutors. And so these----
Ms. Sanchez. She had no role in the investigation of Mr.
Lewis?
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. These investigations, these
prosecutions continue, as they should. This great institution
is built to withstand departures of U.S. attorneys and
attorneys general.
Ms. Sanchez. So you don't think it is inappropriate for a
U.S. attorney to accept a lucrative job offer from a law firm
representing the target of one of their active investigations
in a position that she held just prior to going to that law
firm? You don't think that that is inappropriate?
Mr. Gonzales. Again----
Ms. Sanchez. You don't think that there is perhaps at least
an appearance of a conflict of interest----
Mr. Gonzales. Congresswoman Sanchez, I am presuming,
knowing Deb Yang the way that I do and the people in that firm,
that she would be recused from anything related to that matter
as a member of that firm.
And, again, what is important for the American people to
understand is, despite her departure, that case will continue,
as it should.
Ms. Sanchez. So you are not concerned even with the
appearance of conflicts of interest. It doesn't trouble you at
all----
Mr. Gonzales. I am always concerned about the appearance of
a conflict----
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. Especially at a point when the
Justice Department is under scrutiny, the morale is probably
the lowest that it has been in decades, and people are
questioning the integrity of the DOJ to act in an evenhanded
and fair manner.
Mr. Gonzales. Of course, as head of the department, I am
always concerned about the appearance and the perception. Of
course I am.
But, again, this is more of a perception for the law firm
as opposed to the Department of Justice because, as far as I
know, we had nothing to do with placing Ms. Yang in that law
firm. And as far as I know, nothing about that investigation
has been impacted or affected in any way by virtue of her going
to work in that firm.
Ms. Sanchez. What about this: Are you aware that 1 month
before Ms. Yang resigned her post White House Counsel Harriet
Miers had asked Kyle Sampson if Ms. Yang planned to keep her
post or, as in Mr. Sampson's words to our investigators,
``whether a vacancy could be created there in Los Angeles''?
Were you aware of that?
Mr. Gonzales. I think I may be aware of that, based on my
review. I can't remember now whether or not that is reflected
in the document.
Let me just say this, a couple things about that.
Ms. Yang, when I said she left voluntarily, I think she
left involuntarily, in that she had to leave for financial
reasons. I think if she could have, she would have stayed. But
I think she had to leave for financial reasons.
Mr. Conyers. Former Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of
Wisconsin?
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman, if I could just beg your
indulgence for 10 more seconds to ask unanimous consent that an
article by The New York Times regarding the Yang matter be
placed into the record.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
[The article follows:]
Article published in The New York Times, May 4, 2007, submitted by the
Honorable Linda T. Sanchez, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. Lungren. Reserving the right to object.
Mr. Conyers. For what purpose would you object to putting
that in the record?
Mr. Lungren. Because we have identified a fellow Member of
Congress as a specific target of investigation, it has been put
on the record, and I think we ought to be very careful about
that before we start besmirching Members' names around.
Mr. Conyers. We are not besmirching. This is public
information, Mr. Lungren, and I am going to allow it, and
recognize the former Chairman of the Committee.
Mr. Lungren. I do object, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the Chairman.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple
of questions about public corruption investigations as well.
In January of 2006, the former legislative director to
Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, Brett Pfeffer,
pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the bribery of a public
official and conspiracy. In May of 2006, Vernon Jackson pled
guilty in Federal court to bribing Representative Jefferson
with more than $400,000 of payments. It has been on the public
record that during a execution of a search warrant in
Representative Jefferson's house, there was $90,000 of cold
cash that was found in Representative Jefferson's freezer.
And all of that was a year ago. My constituents are asking
me when something is going to happen, whether an indictment is
going to be returned or whether the Justice Department is going
to make an announcement that there is insufficient evidence to
prosecute Representative Jefferson.
When can the public expect some news one way or the other
on this issue?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, you know I cannot talk about
that.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, everybody is talking about it
except you.
And, you know, this is kind of embarrassing, because this
Committee--and it was on my watch when all of this happened--is
asked questions about what kind of oversight are we doing over
the Department of Justice.
And the two guilty pleas were last year. The raid on Mr.
Jefferson's house was, I believe, earlier than that. And then
there was the raid on his office that posed a whole host of
legal problems that are currently on appeal and will be argued
next week before the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit.
I am just interested in finding out when this matter is
going to be brought to conclusion, because we authorize and
appropriate a heck of a lot of money to run your department and
people are wondering what the dickens is going on.
Mr. Gonzales. I have every confidence that the prosecutors
in this case, as the prosecutors in all these cases, they
follow the evidence. And at the appropriate time, they will
take the appropriate action, Congressman.
That is all that I can say with respect to this particular
case.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Would you believe that the legal issues
that were raised both by Mr. Jefferson and by the counsel to
the clerk of the House of Representatives on the raid on
Jefferson's office in this very building has ended up slowing a
decision on whether or not to indict Mr. Jefferson?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, I am not going to comment on
that. I don't think it would be appropriate. At the appropriate
time, I hope that I can have more to say about this matter.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, I would hope that the appropriate
time would be pretty soon. Because the people's confidence in
your department has been further eroded, separate and apart
from the U.S. attorney controversy, because of the delay in
dealing with this matter.
There is a man who has already been convicted of bribing
the representative. My learning about the crime of bribery in
law school says that in order to obtain a conviction there has
to be a briber and the bribee.
The briber has been convicted. The alleged bribee has not
even been indicted. And I think that there is a disconnect
involved in this in the eyes of the public.
And we all suffer as a result of that, as Members of
Congress, that something is going on that hasn't been resolved.
I have made my point. I hope that you will tell your
prosecutors to wrap this thing up and to let the public know as
soon as they possibly can. And I hope that that is really soon.
And I yield the----
Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. And I yield the balance of my time to
the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have been having a bit of a discussion over here. And I
would just like to ask--and probably yield back to the
gentleman so that he can yield to Mr. Lungren.
But I don't recall that Mr. Lewis has been identified as a
target in an investigation. And I would like to ask the
gentlelady if she is aware that he has been identified as a
target.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentlewoman from
California, Ms. Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. I believe if you look at The New York Times
article that was posted, that it states, ``Ms. Yang was
investigating Jerry Lewis, who was Chairman of the powerful
House Appropriations Committee.''
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I further yield to the gentleman from
Utah, Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. But I would
appreciate it if you would yield to the gentleman from
California----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield to the gentleman from
California, Mr. Lungren.
Mr. Lungren. As anybody knows, there is a huge difference
between an investigation and a target.
When I was attorney general of the State of California, we
had investigations of literally hundreds of public officials.
When someone brings an accusation, you have to look at it. That
is a very different thing than being a target.
We take extreme caution to make sure you do not besmirch
the reputations of people, because that is unfair. And that is
the point I was trying to make.
We in this Congress 20 years ago besmirched the
reputation----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Reclaiming my time before it is expired,
I would just point out that in the Jefferson case, there have
been people who have been convicted of misconduct involving Mr.
Jefferson. With The New York Times article, there has not been
an identification that Representative Lewis is even a target.
Mr. Conyers. Just a moment. I will let Attorney General
Gonzales respond.
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, so that there is no
misunderstanding, the department has not confirmed, is not
confirming that Mr. Lewis is a target.
Ms. Sanchez. Mr. Chairman, could I beg your indulgence for
30 seconds?
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent I
be given an additional 30 seconds to yield to her.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I yield.
Ms. Sanchez. I appreciate you yielding.
Just to set the record straight, the question that I put to
the Attorney General was Ms. Yang was conducting an active
investigation. I didn't say ``target.'' I said ``conducting an
investigation.'' My words seem to get twisted in this Committee
and more import given to basic questions and sinister----
Mr. Cannon. Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. Attributed to them.
And, with that, I will yield back to the gentleman from
Wisconsin.
Mr. Cannon. Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman. I
stated correctly the word used by the gentlelady from
California.
Mr. Conyers. The Chair recognizes the Subcommittee Chairman
on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler.
Mr. Cannon. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order and ask
that the gentlelady's words be taken down.
Mr. Conyers. Come on, now. Let the----
Mr. Cannon. I am happy with an apology, but the gentlelady
used the word ``target,'' and that is exceedingly inappropriate
under the circumstances.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Cannon, the record is being taken. This
will all come out now. I have no intention of delaying the
appearance of the Attorney General of the United States while
we take down the words of someone.
Mr. Cannon. The Chairman knows it is exceedingly hard to be
gracious in this Committee, and apologizing would be
appropriate, but otherwise I insist that the gentlelady's words
be taken down as a point of order.
Ms. Sanchez. If the gentleman will yield, I don't recall--
and I have the questions in front of me--using the word
``target.'' Had I used it, I certainly apologize for using that
word. My understanding is my questions dealt with----
Mr. Conyers. Will the gentlelady agree to withdraw any
reference to ``target'' from the record if it is there?
Ms. Sanchez. I would. I would, Mr. Chairman. If it will
expedite this hearing, I will.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my point of
order.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Mr. Nadler?
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, when did Monica Goodling start in her
role as special counsel to you and the White House liaison?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, I am not sure the exact date,
but I would be happy----
Mr. Nadler. Roughly?
Mr. Gonzales. I am not sure. I would have to get back to
you.
Mr. Nadler. Can you give me the year?
Mr. Gonzales. You know, I don't whether or not it was in
the fall of 2005--sometime in 2005.
Mr. Nadler. Roughly, you know, okay.
Now, to your knowledge, was Ms. Goodling involved in the
hiring decisions of career assistant U.S. attorneys at any
point?
Mr. Gonzales. I am certainly aware, now, of allegations
that--well, she used to be the deputy, of course, in the
Executive Office of the United States Attorneys. And so there
she would have some role with respect to the hiring of career
assistant United States----
Mr. Nadler. As special counsel and White House liaison,
when she had that position, was she involved?
Mr. Gonzales. I think she did have some role in that
position.
Mr. Nadler. Isn't that process reserved for U.S. attorneys,
and in some cases for the Executive Office of the United States
Attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. Is what----
Mr. Nadler. The selection process for assistant USAs.
Mr. Gonzales. Typically, that is something that is
conducted within the office of the specific United States
attorneys' offices. There would be, however, if you are talking
about a situation where you had an interim United States
attorney, there are----
Mr. Nadler. Well, we weren't talking about interim
attorneys. We were talking about generally.
Now, allegations have been might that Ms. Goodling
considered the political affiliations of career AUSA
applicants. Would you agree that, if that is true, that
practice would violate not only Department of Justice policy
but also Federal law?
Mr. Gonzales. In fact, those are very, very serious
allegations. And if that happened, it shouldn't have happened.
Mr. Nadler. Now, Mr. Attorney General, when this Committee
asked Ms. Goodling to testify in front of us, she claimed her
fifth amendment right, which says you can't be forced to--what
is the word--incriminate yourself with respect to a crime.
Can you tell this Committee, from your stewardship of the
department, what crimes there were that it might have been
reasonable for her to think that her testimony might
incriminate her or anybody else in?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I can't do that, Congressman.
Obviously, it has always been my expectation and hope that
Justice Department employees or former Justice Department
employees would come forward and cooperate in connection with
this investigation. I offered up everyone.
Mr. Nadler. But you are not aware of any--when someone who
is the Deputy Attorney General, or special counsel to the
Attorney General, says that her testimony about the U.S.
attorneys matter might implicate her in a crime, you are not
aware of any crimes that she might have been referring to?
Mr. Gonzales. I offered her up----
Mr. Nadler. Or speaking of, I should say.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. To come testify.
Mr. Nadler. What?
Mr. Gonzales. As an initial matter of course, I offered up
people on my staff----
Mr. Nadler. You are not aware of that.
Now, you have testified that you ask yourself every day
whether you can be effective as the head of the Department of
Justice. Did you consider that, by many accounts, the morale at
the Department of Justice and throughout the U.S. attorney
community is at its lowest level since just after Watergate?
Mr. Gonzales. Did I consider that--I don't know what is the
source of that statement.
Mr. Nadler. Well, let me give you a different statement,
then. The recent ABC-Washington Post poll reports that 67
percent of the American people believe that the firings of U.S.
attorneys were for political reasons, not for performance-based
reasons. And, indeed, former Deputy Attorney General Comey said
that the people who were fired had the highest performance,
that they weren't for performance-based reasons.
If the American people don't believe you about this matter,
how can they have confidence in other things you claim or that
public corruption cases brought by your department are not
similarly based on political considerations?
Mr. Gonzales. I think the American people are most
concerned about the things that I alluded to earlier,
Congressman. And that is, is our country safe from terrorism?
Are we making our neighborhoods safe? Are we protecting our
kids?
I will work as hard as I can, working with this Committee
and working with DOJ employees, to reassure the American people
that this department is focused on doing its job.
Mr. Nadler. But you have a situation where most people
believe that you didn't tell the truth about the U.S.
attorneys. And if that is the case--they may be concerned about
terrorism and ought to be, obviously, but it is a separate
issue.
If most people believe that the United States Attorney
General has not told the truth about why these U.S. attorneys
were fired, how can they have confidence in your job?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't believe that is an accurate
statement. And what I am trying to do in appearances like this
is to set the record straight.
Mr. Nadler. Well, 67 percent of the American people,
according to the ABC-Washington Post poll, believe that the
firings of the U.S. attorneys were for political reasons and
not for performance-based reasons, which is exactly the
opposite of what you have testified to.
Mr. Gonzales. I don't know when that poll was taken.
But, again, we have been very, very forthcoming,
Congressman, in terms of our testimony----
Mr. Nadler. Well, all right. That is a matter of opinion.
But let me ask you this: If it is true, as you have
testified, that you had very little personal involvement in the
decision to fire the eight U.S. attorneys, you delegated that,
you weren't really familiar with the reasons and the
specifics--and that is what you said--and did not know the
reasons some of them were on the list, how can we believe that
you were involved in a hands-on manner in running the
department in numerous other important issues?
Mr. Gonzales. Look at the record of the department. Look at
the record of the department.
Mr. Nadler. No, that doesn't answer the question. If you
have stated to this Committee and to other Committees that in
the matter of firing eight U.S. attorneys which you signed off
on, you signed off on it without really knowing why or what
their performance was, how can we believe that you really know
what is going on in the department?
Mr. Gonzales. I think I was justified as head of the
department to rely upon the people whose judgment that I
valued, people who would know a lot more about the performance
of United States attorneys. I think as head of the department I
was justified in doing so.
Now, in hindsight, I have already said, I would have used a
process that was more vigorous. There is no question about
that. But, again, Congressman, I would say, look at the record
of the department in a wide variety of areas and----
Mr. Nadler. Well, let's look at the record of the
department in a different area: national security letters. Why
is the government issuing NSLs to conduct fishing expeditions
or, as the I.G. put it, to access NSL information about parties
two or three steps removed from their subjects without
determining if these contacts are real suspicious connections?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, of course, the I.G. also said that
national security letters are indispensable--indispensable.
Mr. Nadler. That is not the question. Excuse me. National
security letters properly used may be indispensable. But they
were abused. That was the I.G----
Mr. Gonzales. There is no question about that.
Mr. Nadler. So why is the department issuing NSLs to
conduct--I will just repeat the question--to conduct fishing
expeditions, as the I.G. put it----
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Nadler. May I have 1 additional minute?
Mr. Conyers. Finish the question.
Mr. Nadler. Thanks.
To access NSL information about parties two or three times
removed from their subjects without determining if these
contacts are real suspicious connections?
Let me add to that, why is there no policy or practice of
destroying information collected thusly, wrongly collected on
innocent Americans?
Mr. Gonzales. There is a long answer I need to give with
respect to NSLs. I am not sure whether or not now is the time
to do it.
But the I.G. identified some very serious issues with
respect to the FBI's use of national security letters. No
question they are an indispensable tool, but they have got to
be used in a responsible manner, and we failed to do that. We
did. We failed to do that.
And the American people need to understand that we are
taking steps to ensure that that doesn't happen again. The
standard is whether or not is it relevant to a national
security investigation.
Mr. Nadler. Are you taking steps to destroy information on
people who are not involved in terrorism?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes. If it is not relevant to a national
security investigation, yes, we are taking steps.
Mr. Nadler. Well, the testimony was that those records were
not being destroyed.
Mr. Conyers. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North
Carolina, Howard Coble.
Mr. Coble. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General, good to have you on the Hill. I am going to
pursue a different line of questioning. If time permits, I am
going to come back to the U.S. attorney situation.
General, I am particularly interesting in the activities of
the Computer Crime and Intellectual Properties Section, known
as CCIP, at the Department of Justice.
Intellectual property theft is an enormous theft, as you
and we all know. Are you confident, General, that the Justice
Department has the necessary tools to investigate and prosecute
high-level intellectual property cases that could severely
interrupt or eliminate international criminal networks who are
using intellectual property piracy to fund their organizations,
A?
And B, I am told that there may be an insufficient number
of FBI special agents at the department who, to successfully
work these complicated cases.
And finally, C, General, how can we more successfully
prevent or prosecute counterfeiting and intellectual piracy
crimes in the United States and around the world?
That is a three-part question I threw at you.
Mr. Gonzales. Let me start with the last one, in terms of
what we can do to work against counterfeiting.
One is prosecution, and utilizing the tools that Congress
has given us to go after counterfeiters.
This is not an issue that we can deal with solely through
the United States. We have to have the cooperation of our
friends and allies around the world. And so, when I travel
around the world, intellectual-property theft is always an
issue that I raise. Because we can't successfully deal with it
here in this country.
The second way to deal with counterfeiting is education, to
educate the public about the dangers of counterfeiting. For
example, if you are talking about counterfeiting of drugs, that
could be dangerous to the consumer. If you are talking about
counterfeiting of an airplane part, that could be dangerous to
people who fly on airplanes. And so education is a very
important part of that.
Whether or not we have sufficient agents working on these
complicated cases, I suspect if I were to ask the director he
would say we always need more resources. You always need more
agents, because these are very, very complicated cases.
The whole area of, you know, computer technology, the
Internet, it is wonderful for consumers. It is wonderful for
the American people. But the changes in technology are such
that in the hands of criminals, in the hands of terrorists, it
presents unique challenges to those of us in the law
enforcement community.
Criminals and terrorists will pay to advance technology.
They see what we do. And so when we do something to defend
against this kind of theft, defend against these kind of
criminal activities, then they will go out and they will pay
top dollar for the top innovators. And they get changes in
technology, new encryption. And it makes it much more difficult
for us to track them.
So this is a continuing struggle. It is a war on many
fronts, whether you are talking about Internet pharmacies that
are springing up that are illegitimate, whether or not you are
talking about Internet crimes involving our children. This is a
real war that is being waged over the Internet, being waged
through technology.
And I do sometimes worry that we don't have the best minds
on this, we don't have adequate resources. And I think that is
something that I would love to talk to Congress about because I
worry about this very much.
Mr. Coble. Well, I, too, worry about it, General, and I am
concerned. I hope that the American public is aware of the
threat that is potentially posed by this problem. But in any
event, I thank you for that.
Now let's come back to the U.S. attorney situation. Since
the U.S. attorney situation arose, General, have you
implemented any new processes or procedures governing or
dictating the dismissal of U.S. attorneys to ensure that a
similar situation will not occur in the future in either this
or future Administrations?
Mr. Gonzales. I have certainly thought about what I would
have done differently in terms of a more vigorous and a little
bit more formal process.
But I want to emphasize something for the Committee, and
this is very important. I think to a person, in terms of the
U.S. attorneys that I have spoken with, they don't want a
formal review process. They don't like it. They don't want it.
They do want to be told if there are issues with their
performance, have somebody let them know ahead of time and give
them an opportunity to correct it.
The other reason I would resist a formal process is because
we all serve at the pleasure of the President. And if, in fact,
we had a formal process and that formal process says Al
Gonzales is doing well, or that this U.S. attorney is doing
well, politically it may make it more difficult for the
President to exercise his constitutional authority.
So we don't want a formal process per se, but I think
something a little bit more structured, something a little bit
more vigorous would have made sense.
And clearly I think one thing that we are going to do is at
least once a year every United States attorney is going to sit
down with either myself or the Deputy Attorney General and we
are going to have a very candid conversation about issues and
problems in their districts. If I have heard of complaints from
someone that is a Member of Congress, it gives me an
opportunity or the DAG, the Deputy Attorney General, an
opportunity to tell the U.S. attorney what we are hearing.
So I think that is something that needs to be in place.
That has never been in place before.
The level of communication between main Justice and our
United States attorneys, what I have discovered, is not very
good. We can do better, and I think we are going to make it
better.
Mr. Coble. And I want to follow up, General, with the
counterfeiting and piracy problem subsequently.
And, Mr. Chairman, I see my red light is illuminated. So I
will sit down and shut up.
Mr. Conyers. Well, you can submit the question to him to be
answered later.
Mr. Coble. I thank you.
Mr. Conyers. The Subcommittee Chairman on Crime, Bobby
Scott of Virginia?
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Mr. Gonzales, for being with us today. I
wanted to pose a question and get a response in writing later
from you.
Representative Wolf, Representative Maloney and I wrote you
a letter a few months ago, recommending and requesting that you
make better use of the tough measures in the Protect Act and
the Adam Walsh Act to go after domestic traffickers in this
country, rather than using measures only involving force, fraud
and coercion. The bills we passed make it much easier to go
after the notorious and brutal system of domestic prostitution.
And we are going to ask you why you are not making better use
of that information.
Last week, we also had a vote on potential discrimination
in the Head Start program. You have not been able to
discriminate in employment based on religion during the
entirety of the 40 years of the Head Start program. An attempt
was made to allow some to discriminate.
Can we count on your opposition to any effort to water down
the discrimination prohibitions in the Head Start program?
Mr. Gonzales. Obviously, Congressman, that would be
something that would be of concern to me. Whether or not I
would oppose legislation, I have to look at it first. And the
Administration speaks with one voice, but it is something I
would look at very seriously.
Mr. Scott. Can you conceive of your support for a provision
that would tell a prospective Head Start teacher that, ``You
can't get a job here because of your religion''?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, Congressman, I would like to look at
that. But, again, that would be something that I would be
concerned about.
Mr. Scott. One of the problems we have had in the Crime
Subcommittee is the situation where people do not want to
cooperate with the police. There is a culture of no snitching
and not coming forth to participate as witnesses. Part of the
problem is we have to have confidence that the criminal justice
system is impartial.
Now, one of the questions that was asked, I think the
gentleman from Texas asked, did the White House ask you to seek
removal of a U.S. attorney for retaliation? Now, let me change
that a little bit. Did the White House ask you to seek the
removal of any U.S. attorney?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, I have a recollection of Mr.
Rove raising concerns about prosecutions of voter fraud cases
in three districts. Of course, I have now been made aware of
the fact that there was a conversation with the President that
basically mentioned the same thing. This was in October of
2006.
There is a process within the White House Judicial
Selection Committee process, where decisions are made with
respect to the appointment of judges. That also involves the
appointment of U.S. attorneys. It is conceivable that in those
meetings, there was some discussion about someone leaving. But
I don't have any specific recollection----
Mr. Scott. The question of people leaving--we had the CRS
do an investigation. And they only found 10 cases of U.S.
attorneys leaving, other than the usual practice of a new set
coming in, only 10 in the last 25 years. And they found that
each and every one of those is involved in a scandal or removed
for cause.
Can you give us the name of anyone in the last 25 years
that you know of that CRS couldn't find that was fired or asked
to leave involuntarily, other than a scandal?
Mr. Gonzales. I am not familiar with the CRS report. I
don't know how they conducted their review.
I will tell you that there are many instances where someone
engages in certain kinds of conduct that are improper. There is
a quiet conversation that occurs, and then that person decides,
``I am going to leave voluntarily.'' And so, I don't know
whether or not the CRS is capable of identifying those kinds
of----
Mr. Scott. Okay. They couldn't find one that didn't leave
other than for cause.
Now, in your testimony you indicated that it would be an
improper reason for the removal of a U.S. attorney, and an
improper reason would be the replacement of one or more U.S.
attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal
investigations for illegitimate reasons.
You call that improper. Wouldn't that be illegal?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, that would be interference----
Mr. Scott. Okay.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. Depending on the circumstances.
Mr. Scott. Now, in light of the fact that some people have
been designated as loyal Bushies, we know that some of the U.S.
attorneys got telephone calls from political figures and were
fired. Are you aware of any that got political phone calls,
with attempts to apply political pressure, that were not fired?
Mr. Gonzales. I would have to go back and look at that,
Congressman.
Mr. Scott. The editorial that was put in the record
indicates that Mrs. Yang had been designated--been called by
you as one of the most respected U.S. attorneys in the country.
The editorial says that Harriet Miers focused on only two U.S.
attorneys for removal, her and one other.
Can you explain how Mrs. Yang's name got on that list of
attorneys to be removed?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't recall that her name was on the list
of attorneys to be removed. But let me just say----
Mr. Scott. Well, was she not targeted by Harriet Miers?
Mr. Gonzales. I recall knowing about Ms. Yang's concern
about remaining in the position because of the financial
situation. She would have to--it was my understanding----
Mr. Scott. Was she not on a target list of Harriet Miers?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't recall her being on a target list for
Harriet Miers. I think that Ms. Miers may have known about Ms.
Yang's concern about continuing to remain on the job for
financial reasons. And therefore, that being a very important
office, it would be understandable----
Mr. Scott. You dispute the editorial in The New York Times,
May 4, 2007?
Mr. Gonzales. I haven't read the editorial, Congressman.
What I am trying to tell you is that Ms. Miers may have known--
--
Mr. Scott. If you could respond in writing so that you
can----
Mr. Conyers. Time is expired.
Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, could I ask just that he respond
in writing to the allegations made in the editorial? Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman from California, Elton Gallegly?
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, General Gonzales.
As Members of this Committee and as Members of Congress, we
all have varied priorities, as I am sure you are well aware.
But I would hope that no priority for any Member of this
Committee or this Congress is greater than working to make this
nation as safe as possible, as it relates to another terrorist
attack.
Mr. Gonzales, The Washington Post reported just this
morning that at least two members of an alleged terrorist cell
in New Jersey were illegal aliens and had been stopped by the
police repeatedly for traffic violations.
This is eerily similar to the case of Mohammed Atta, who
was here illegally and was pulled over by the Florida State
Police for a traffic violation. A mere month later, he flew an
airplane into the World Trade Center.
What steps is the Department of Justice taking to ensure
that illegal aliens who are stopped for traffic violations or
other crimes are identified and deported?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, of course, those stops generally would
occur by State and local officials.
Mr. Gallegly. Right.
Mr. Gonzales. And the question is whether or not that
information is shared with the department and shared with the
Department of Homeland Security. And I know there has been a
concerted effort by the Department of Homeland Security to try
and encourage State and locals to be of more assistance in
dealing with illegal aliens here in this country.
And, obviously, some jurisdictions are prohibited by law
from doing so. Some jurisdictions do not want to do so because
they don't have the resources, because they believe it will
hurt their relationships in the community. But some
jurisdictions are stepping up and providing additional
assistance.
And where in fact we can prosecute people, we do so. But I
will be candid with you, Congressman: I mean, it is a question
of resources in many cases because you are talking about
thousands and hundreds of thousands of people. And unless you
are talking about someone who is engaged in a very serious
crime, sometimes the resources are such that we have to look at
prosecuting other crimes first.
Mr. Gallegly. Well, I appreciate the answer, and I know
that is an ongoing problem working with other jurisdictions.
But, as you well know, history has a very, very strong history
of repeating itself. That is the reason I asked that question.
On an issue that is more directly related to your office,
this past Saturday--and I am not normally one that quotes The
Washington Post, but it was a source of a page-one story that
interested me greatly. It was regarding the issue of illegal
immigrants who have ignored and evaded deportation orders.
These people, who are known as alien absconders, are not
just people who came to the country illegally, but in many
cases are those that have committed serious crimes in this
country.
The article points out that, as of April of this year,
there is a backlog of over 636,000 illegal alien absconders.
This number has more than doubled since the year 2001.
What is the Department of Justice doing to identify,
apprehend, and deport alien absconders and those that have
flaunted the deportation orders by the United States courts?
And are you satisfied with that as a priority?
Mr. Gonzales. I think that we are doing everything we can
do.
But, quite frankly, again, because there are issues
relating to resources--there are also issues relating to space,
bed space in our prisons. And bed space that can be contracted
out from State and local jurisdictions.
And so I am confident that we are doing everything that we
can do. But, again, it is a question of seeing if we can find
additional space to actually hold these people.
And, again, I think this would be one reason why I think
the President is supportive of comprehensive immigration reform
that is workable. Because we have to have a system, whatever we
do by Congress. And the President has laid out principles that
he supports.
But whatever it is, it has got to be one that is workable,
where we don't have a situation that someone who has been
determined to be unlawfully in this country nonetheless is
released because we have no place to put them. And then they
hide in our neighborhoods.
Mr. Gallegly. In the last 18 months of your term, what
specific steps are you planing to take to improve the process
of prosecuting those who violate immigration laws, particularly
drug smugglers and human trafficking?
Mr. Gonzales. I think one of the things we are going to do
is have a conversation with United States attorneys, get an
assessment about what additional resources may be available to
throw at these particular cases, have a conversation perhaps
with Harley Lappin, the director of prisons, to see is there
anything else that we can do for additional bed space. What can
we do in terms of contracting out? Have more conversations with
the Department of Homeland Security. So these are things that
we could look at.
But I think to really address this problem, it will
probably require additional resources, and I think seriously
requires a change in our immigration laws. We need to have a
system that is comprehensive and one that is really workable.
Mr. Conyers. Time is expired.
Mr. Gallegly. I see that the time has expired.
I would just like to respond to the statement that, with
all due respect, Attorney General, I think that the laws aren't
the primary problem. I think the will to enforce the laws as it
relates to immigration plays a very big role.
And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, because of the
time situation, I would ask unanimous consent that we may be
able to ask additional questions in writing and have them
responded to and made a part of the record of the hearing.
Mr. Conyers. Absolutely. That has been understood, and we
will continue that procedure.
Mr. Gallegly. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. The Chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, Zoe
Lofgren?
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do have some questions on the U.S. attorney situation.
But before I ask that, I would just like the Attorney General
not to answer today but to spend some time attending to the
dreadful situation of the FBI name check.
As of May 4th of this month, USCIS had sent and had pending
300,000-plus names to the FBI; 155,000 of those name checks
have been pending for more than 6 months. And we know,
historically, that far less than 1 percent ever have any
problem.
But this is a real problem for two points of view.
One, economically, if you have got somebody that needs to
be cleared, this messes it up. And, as a matter of fact, I just
got a call from a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, this
huge venture that could end up hiring hundreds of Americans, is
just stalled because of a 3-year delay. They just can't get any
answer at all out of the engineer and the inventor that they
know about.
The other side is, for that less than 1 percent, we are not
finding them, and that could be a threat.
So I don't want you to answer now, but I do hope that you
will get back to this Committee, because it is an outrageous
situation.
Now I would like to inquire about the situation of U.S.
Attorney Todd Graves. Here we have been pursuing--I am on the
Subcommittee of jurisdiction--we thought there was eight U.S.
attorney situations. And now, according to press reports, there
is a ninth U.S. attorney situation.
And I would like to know, the news media is reporting that
Mr. Graves had been targeted for removal on Mr. Samson's list
as early as January of 2006. And one reason suggested in the
press is that in November of 2005 the U.S. attorney, Mr.
Graves, refused to sign onto a lawsuit that was proposed by
main Justice accusing the State of Missouri of improper conduct
regarding its voter rolls.
Would you have recommended Mr. Graves for removal based on
that exercise of his prosecutorial judgment?
Mr. Gonzales. I have no basis to believe that, in fact,
that particular case has anything to do with Mr. Graves'
departure. I have spoken with the head of the Civil Rights
Division this morning about this; obviously just became aware
of Mr. Graves' statements in today paper. I spoke with Wan Kim,
head of the Civil Rights Division. He signed the complaint. He
stands behind that particular case. He is not aware of any
concerns that existed in that office.
Now, we haven't spoken to everyone in that office, but we
are not aware of any concerns that existed in that office with
respect to this particular case. The assistant U.S. attorney
signed on the complaint as well. Mr. Graves' name is on the
complaint.
The case involved whether or not the voter lists were
accurate in Missouri, and the Democratic secretary of state
issued a statement saying----
Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Attorney General, are you aware that just
last month this litigation was dismissed for lack of evidence?
Doesn't that suggest that the judgment not to file might have
been the right one?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, we are evaluating whether to
appeal. But it is my understanding that the judge decided that
the department should not have sued the secretary of state but
should have sued the local jurisdictions. So that is the
primary basis for the dismissal, as I understand it.
And, again, the Democratic secretary of state issued a
statement saying basically, ``You got us. Our roles are
incomplete and inaccurate.'' And I think it is legitimate for
the American people to expect that voting lists be reasonably
accurate. That is what Congress required in its laws.
Ms. Lofgren. I understand--and this is really based on
press reports so I don't have any firsthand knowledge--that Mr.
Schlozman had vote fraud experience but little prosecutorial
experience, and that when Mr. Graves was left, that Mr.
Schlozman was almost immediately appointed by you as his
replacement.
I mean, just looking it at, doesn't it look like there was
some plan in place to replace this Mr. Graves with Mr.
Schlozman related to this prosecution? And isn't it true that
the department's own criteria for bringing lawsuits would tend
to indicate that lawsuits would not be brought just before an
election?
Mr. Gonzales. The substance and timing of the--well, let me
just say again that I spoke with the head of the Civil Rights
Division this morning and he stands behind this litigation. He
believes it was an appropriate use of the department's
resources. And we will determine whether or not to----
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I don't want to be rude, Mr. Gonzales,
but the bells are ringing and I just have 1 more second to read
very briefly the quotes in the Boston Globe that says, ``
`Schlozman was reshaping the Civil Rights Division,' said Joe
Rich, who was chief of the Voting Rights Section until 2005. In
an interview he said, `Schlozman didn't know anything about
voting law. All he knew was he wanted to make sure that
Republicans were going to win.' ''
And that was from the career guy who got pushed out from
the department. I would like your comments on that in writing
later.
I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Former attorney general of California, Daniel
Lungren?
Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, when I was attorney general of
California, I only had 1,000 lawyers and 5,000 employees. How
many do you have?
Mr. Gonzales. Approximately 110,000.
Mr. Lungren. And how many lawyers?
Mr. Gonzales. Oh, about, I think, 10,000 to 15,000.
Mr. Lungren. And how many U.S. attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. We have 93 U.S. attorneys.
Mr. Lungren. Do you actually delegate?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Lungren. Do you delegate authority at times?
Mr. Gonzales. Of course.
Mr. Lungren. I mean, that seems to be a surprise here, that
you would delegate. I mean, I delegated occasionally when I was
attorney general. And sometimes I found out that those to whom
I delegated responsibilities didn't perform the way I thought
they would, and tried to make some changes thereafter.
But really, we sometimes confuse here, it seems to me, the
question of competence versus the question of criminality. And
that is the concern that, of all Committees of the House, this
ought to be of the highest priority.
Let me ask you this: In terms of U.S. attorneys, do you
expect that they should reflect the emphases of the President
of the United States?
And what I mean by that is, we have presidential elections
every 4 years. A President comes in and says, ``I want to make
crime-fighting the number-one priority; I want to give
assistance to the states with their drug-fighting; I want to
assist the states in going after gangs.''
Do you expect that your U.S. attorneys ought to at least
pay some attention to the priorities of a President of the
United States, that is, his Administration's policies?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes. In fact, we have a conversation with him
when they come on board and we make it clear that the President
is accountable to the American people for the policies and
priorities which he campaigned on. And those can only be
carried out by the Attorney General----
Mr. Lungren. But isn't that political?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I think, with respect to policies and
priorities, one could say it is political, but that would be
okay. That would be okay to do----
Mr. Lungren. I think so, but some people find that
shocking.
It has been said--and I know we are not supposed to counter
editorials of The New York Times and other articles, but I am
aware of at least one case, in a U.S. attorney in California,
in a prior Administration, that left office. You won't find a
record that that person left office because of lack of
performance, but I happen to believe that is the case. We are
acting around this place like U.S. attorneys are the product of
the Immaculate Conception, and once they have been created that
cannot be undone.
Now, let me ask you this about voter fraud: Do you believe
that we ought to investigate voter fraud that might take place
as the result of people who are dead still being on the rolls?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, it is the law. We have an
obligation to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.
Where this notion that somehow voter fraud is a dirty word,
I don't understand it. Because you are talking about people
stealing votes, canceling out legitimate votes.
And so we have an obligation--as a minority, to me it is
extremely important to make sure that votes count. And I think
we have an obligation at the department to pursue voter fraud.
Mr. Lungren. I have been a little confused by some of the
statements that have come out of the Justice Department and
from you, quite frankly, Mr. Attorney General, about the
propriety of reviewing the performance of U.S. attorneys who
might be performing well as attorneys but not be bringing
forward the emphases or the priorities of the Administration.
Do you think that is an appropriate thing to bring up in
terms of a review, as opposed to whether or not they are good
attorneys and they prosecute cases well; that is, the array of
their resources with respect to the priorities of the
Administration?
Mr. Gonzales. I do.
Mr. Lungren. And would that, could that be the grounds for
making a determination as to whether a U.S. attorney stays?
Mr. Gonzales. It could be.
Mr. Lungren. Under the statute, does a U.S. attorney have a
prescribed term?
Mr. Gonzales. The statute says 4 years. But, of course, the
statute also says that they may be removed by the President.
Mr. Lungren. So it is a maximum of 4 years unless
reappointed. Is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. What is customary--I wouldn't say customary--
what often happens is that U.S. attorneys simply hold over
unless there is a decision made by the President to make some
kind of change.
Mr. Lungren. So I am trying to----
Mr. Gonzales. What I would say is that this is a privilege.
I have the privilege of serving as the Attorney General. If the
President comes to me today and says, ``I no longer have
pleasure in you continuing to serve,'' that is the way it
works.
Mr. Lungren. Did the President of the United States or
anybody from the White House tell you to investigate or remove
any U.S. attorney because they were launching a particular
investigation against a Democrat or Republican for partisan
reasons, or to back off of any such prosecution?
Mr. Gonzales. They never said it to me.
Mr. Lungren. Did you ever say that to anybody?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Lungren. Anybody in your department say that that you
know of?
Mr. Gonzales. Not that I am aware of.
Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Attorney General, we are going to recess
for the votes, of course. And we will resume immediately after
the votes have taken place on the floor of the House.
Thank you very much.
[Recess.]
Mr. Conyers. The Committee will come to order.
We thank you for your cooperation, Attorney General.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Houston, TX,
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
Good afternoon, Mr. General.
And let me thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member. This
is a vital hearing and question-and-answer process for
protecting the integrity of the Constitution and the integrity
of your office, which I assume you have come today to be as
open as you could be in order to ensure that that happens.
Before I start the questioning on the matter at hand, let
me share with you consternation and frustration that we have
dealing with a question of the viability, the constitutionality
of the prison system in the State of Texas.
It goes really to the overall question that this chart that
I will hold up suggests, is that under your tenure, starting
from 2005, every civil rights case has gone down. It means
police abuse, racial violence, hate crimes, human trafficking
under your clock and under your watch, it has been a steady
decline of prosecutions by the Attorney General. That poses a
crisis for America.
Let me just quickly ask for your assistance. You may not be
able to answer this, but this is a crisis.
I hold up an article that indicates that in Houston, TX, we
will double the number of deaths in the Harris County jail--11
right now, 117 over 10 years--and a sheriff who is completely
absent from the sensitivity of the constitutional rights of the
inmates.
Let me just quickly say to you that here is an example.
Calvin Mack, a homeless and hardened drug addict, continued to
bleed, continued to die. If you will, the person in the jail
said, ``What do you want me to do, get a Band-Aid?'' a deputy
quipped when he was asked to come to the cell block. Four hours
passed before the officer called for medical help. By then Mack
was all but dead.
In the Texas Youth Commission, it says that a Texas Youth
Commission officer was arrested for having sex with a female
youth.
And so my question to you is, it is clear that we have a
crisis in the prosecution of constitutional rights of the
underserved, if you will. We know if you are in jail, you have
committed some sort of an offense, but you deserve the question
of the Constitution.
My question to you, one, I would like to have a meeting
with all of your staff asking for an inspector generals'
investigation of the Harris County Jail and the Texas Youth
Commission. You have letters that I sent; you sent back saying,
``We think you have concerns. Send us more information.''
I am happy to be an investigator for the DOJ. It is not my
job right now. I am happy to participate with giving you family
members and others whose loved ones have died, but I believe
this warrants an official Justice Department investigation to
make good on these low, low numbers of prosecuting civil
rights, constitutional rights of any number of individuals.
Can I yield to you just for the answer? I have letters from
your department. You can review them. Can we work together to
ensure the safety and security of youth inmates in the TYC, and
those in the Harris County Jail?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Ms. Jackson Lee. I would look forward to a more extensive
answer and a meeting, and I will be happy to present family
members and others.
And I, likewise, in your capacity, invite you to Houston,
TX, so that we can have a larger assessment of this situation.
People are dying and this is prevalent across America, and I
would welcome the opportunity to discuss, at another round, the
whole question of police abuse and other issues.
Let me just move forward more as we look at the issues at
hand, and with all due respect, let me say to you--and I would
like you to think about how telling they are----
Mr. Conyers. You have got 48 seconds left.
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Hitting back the Congress,
and this whole thing of the Deputy Attorney General reacted
quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying. And
he seemed to threaten Bud Cummins, and said, ``You will regret
coming forward and testifying.''
Mr. Attorney General, with all these political comments,
how are you going to fix this troubling and devastating litany
of duplicity in your department? What steps have you taken to
address these problems?
I would appreciate, Mr. Attorney General, your answer.
The light is still on.
Mr. Gonzales. Obviously, there have been some very serious
allegations made, Congresswoman. And one of the things that we
are going to do with respect to these serious allegations is
that we have made referrals to the Office of Professional
Responsibility and to the Office of Inspector General.
These entities exist in order to respond to allegations, to
do investigations to reassure the American public that in fact
we take these kinds of allegations very, very seriously.
But I want to put everything in perspective for you. I
think that there have been allegations made with respect to the
conduct of three political appointees in the entirety of the
Department of Justice. There are hundreds of political
appointees, there are tens of thousands of career employees at
the Department of Justice.
So I don't want the American people to believe that in fact
politicalization is running rampant in the department, because
that is just not true.
Obviously, I take these allegations very seriously. I don't
want to minimize them. But to the extent that allegations are
made that there is improper conduct, they are referred where
they should be referred. We are doing an investigation to
ensure that in fact, if anything improper happened here, we are
going to get to the bottom of it. And there will be
accountability.
Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to put into the record the two
articles that I referred to, which are the Houston Chronicle,
dated April 5, 2007, and the Chronicle dated April 25, 2007.
And I would just simply say----
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
[The articles follow:]
Article published in the Houston Chronicle, April 5, 2007, and April 8,
2007, submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas, and Member, Committee on the
Judiciary
Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. Is the Attorney General
offers a wonderful mea culpa, but I would just say the
perception is there.
I thank the----
Mr. Conyers. The Chair recognizes the Ranking Subcommittee
Member of Commercial and Administrative Law, Chris Cannon.
Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to submit for the record also a letter from
Randy Mastro at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection.
[The letter follows:]
Letter from Randy Mastro, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, submitted by the
Honorable Chris Cannon, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Utah, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. Cannon. This is a letter that rebuts Mr. Cohen's
editorial and points out that they did not offer Ms. Yang $1.5
million. And in addition to that, she recused herself while she
was at the department, and she is not participating in those
issues where she has gone. And they praise her as a great
attorney.
General Gonzales, thanks for being here. I think you are
very gracious to address these accusations as serious and not
react to the suggestion that there may be duplicity, out of
110,000 employees. But I think you have been very direct here
this morning.
You are familiar with Mr. Margolis at the Department of
Justice, are you not?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Cannon. And my understanding is he is the senior career
employee at the department. Is that right?
Mr. Gonzales. I think he may not be the senior, but he is
certainly one of the most senior.
Mr. Cannon. Probably one of the most outspoken. And he was
actually interviewed, and I would like to read some of the
comments that he made.
He was asked, ``And then you testified that you said
something to the effect of, `but this does open the door to a
more responsible'--and you used that word, that is, `a more
responsible'--to a focused process to identify weak performers
and make some changes.' And you thought that was a good idea.''
And Mr. Margolis responded, ``I thought it was a great idea,
long overdue.''
Now, I believe it was Mr. Scott who was talking about the
CRS report on firings at the Department of Justice, which is
retrospective, of course. And here you have got a senior person
at the Department of Justice pointing out that he thought what
you were doing here was a great idea.
A little more here: ``To move onto another thing, you
mentioned during your testimony earlier in the day, I believe,
that you had indicated that you thought it was good of the
department to embark on an exercise like this; that is,
reviewing U.S. attorneys.'' Mr. Margolis: ``Absolutely. And I
should add, one of my sadnesses''--his word--``I have a lot of
sadness about this, but it was a great idea. Our execution
wasn't particularly good, but we didn't have much experience
with it.''
So this is a new idea, a new process here.
``But one of my great sadnesses is I fear that, down the
road, people will shy away from doing this again because of the
burning here.''
In other words, he is condemning the politicization of this
process.
``And so, when a U.S. attorney called me a couple of weeks
ago to run an idea past me, he said, `I want to take some
action, but I want to run it past you and take your
temperature, because I don't want to get fired.' I said to him,
`Buddy, you could urinate on the President's leg now, and it
wouldn't work,' '' suggesting that the department has, in fact,
been affected.
And, again, Mr. Margolis is one of the very senior career
guys who happens--I think you would agree he loves the
department----
Mr. Gonzales. No question about that.
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. Cares about the institution----
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. Cares about the integrity of the
institution----
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. And was called on to testify
because they thought he would do what he suggested could be
done without fear of being fired, I suppose.
``Were you involved in any way,'' he was asked, ``about the
decision to put Ms. Lam on the list?'' He says, ``So it didn't
surprise me in that sense because when Mercer was PDAG, he used
to tell me about problems he was having with here, vis-a-vis
immigration and immigration and guns, I believe.''
Then he goes on and he says, ``Based upon my interaction
with her and what other people, including Ms. Mercer, said,
both then and now, and reading my--and I love Carol like a
sister; an outstanding investigative lawyer, an outstanding
trial lawyer, tough as nails, honest as the day is long, but
had her own ideas about what the priorities of the department
would be and was probably insubordinate on those things.''
Nobody is claiming Mr. Margolis is political or
politicizing this process. He is saying this is a process that
was good, and he wants it to happen or continue.
Later he says, ``She called me primarily to tell me that. I
think she said, ``I think I just got fired by Mike Battle.'''
But later he says, ``And then she speculated to me that is was
over immigration and guns.'' She then told what the problem
was.
By the way, I think he said it was a very pleasant
conversation.
So this is not about competency. Nobody is saying Ms. Lam
wasn't competent. But she wasn't doing, and she understood she
wasn't doing, what the President wanted. Do you think that is
correct, Mr. Gonzales?
Mr. Gonzales. First of all, let me just say that Carol and
these other United States attorneys, I mean, they are fine
individuals, very, very, very fine lawyers----
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. I don't want to cut you off, but I
do just want to put one more in. This is Mr. Margolis again:
``I was asked about David Iglesias. Given everything I know
today, he would have been number one on my list to go.'' ``That
is because he didn't call and report the phone calls?'' ``That
is right.'' And he goes on to talk about that.
So we did have some problems with some of these guys, in
the sense that they weren't exactly paradigms of competence,
were they?
Mr. Gonzales. It was my idea that these individuals had
been identified by the senior leadership in the department as
having issues or concerns and that a chance would be legitimate
and----
Mr. Cannon. While I still have the yellow light, I agree
with you, but you have a huge department to run. I think Mr.
Lungren talked about the number, 110,000 people. You have said
at one point in time that you delegated responsibility, and you
have been criticized for that.
And on the other hand, somebody pointed out you had five
meetings with Mr. Sampson over a period of time--over, by the
way, 24 months. That is one meeting every 5 months.
Do you think that was the appropriate level of oversight,
given what you knew then as opposed to what you know now,
looking back?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, of course, in hindsight, no. I think I
would have done the process differently. I would have had a
more structured process, a more vigorous process. Again, not a
formal process, but something more structured, where I had more
direct communication with Mr. Sampson, let him know exactly
what I expected.
I would let him know what things that I think should
properly be considered in evaluating the performance of U.S.
attorneys, who I want him to consult with, who I wanted the
recommendation to come from. I would have ensured that there
would have been at least one face-to-face meeting with each of
the United States attorneys, not just these eight but all 93,
and have a discussion about their performance.
So there were some things that I think we could have done
differently, should have done better. And going forward, there
will be some changes to make sure that we operate the
department in a way that everyone expects.
Mr. Cannon. But you learned from it, and it is a process
you hope will continue, I take it. Or at least I hope it will
continue.
Mr. Chairman, I realize my----
Mr. Gonzales. I think we have an obligation, quite frankly,
as head of a department for the American people to ensure that
public servants are doing their job.
Mr. Cannon. So do I.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize my time is up, and I
yield back.
Mr. Conyers. The distinguished gentleman from North
Carolina, Mel Watt?
Mr. Watt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Attorney General, let me first apologize for not
being here for your testimony. Unfortunately, I am chairing a
Subcommittee in another Committee and had to be there for a
hearing that we had scheduled before we found out you were
going to testify. So accept my apologies, please.
In the prior hearings, Mr. Attorney General, I have been
devoting some time to trying to figure out what happened with
the firing of John McKay. And on April 19th you told the Senate
that you had accepted the recommendation to fire Mr. McKay
because he had shown bad judgment in pushing an information-
sharing system and in speaking to the press about department
resources.
Do you remember that testimony?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes. I hope, though, that I said the concern
was not that it was pushing for the information-sharing system,
but the manner in which he pushed it.
Mr. Watt. Okay. Well, that really doesn't have much
relevance to the next set of things I want to ask you about.
Whatever he was pushing or not pushing occurred in the summer
of 2006.
The letter on the information system you discussed in the
Senate was dated August 30, 2006, it turns out. And Mr. McKay's
comments to the press were reflected in an e-mail on September
22, 2006.
And, unfortunately, we now have evidence, documentation in
fact, that Mr. McKay was already targeted for removal by Mr.
Sampson in March of 2005, because the documents show that he
was already on the list.
So are you aware of any legitimate reason that John McKay
should have been forced out as a U.S. attorney in March of
2005, as opposed to the things you had talked about that
occurred in 2006?
Mr. Gonzales. I would have to go back and look at that,
Congressman.
Again, what I recall is that when I accepted the
recommendations, I was not surprised to see Mr. McKay included,
because I was aware of concerns in the way that he pushed this
information-sharing project.
And I applaud his efforts. He was doing his job.
Mr. Watt. Okay, Mr. Attorney General, I understand what you
are saying. You have got to go back and look.
But there has been some suggestion, unfortunately--our
investigators asked Kyle Sampson, and he said that he
remembered department officials being upset that Mr. McKay had
pushed for action regarding the department's investigation of
the murder of Thomas Wales. And there was some concern that he
was being overly aggressive in pursuing the people who had
murdered Thomas Wales.
And so a lot of people are viewing this as being admirable,
not something that somebody should be fired for. Would you
agree with that?
Mr. Gonzales. Certainly, it wasn't in my mind a reason why
I accepted the recommendation. And I was not aware of these
specific concerns within the department until very, very
recently.
So if that was a reason why he was included as part of the
recommended group, that is something you would have to ask
others involved in this process because I have not had the
opportunity to do that.
Mr. Watt. And if that was among the reasons, would you
agree with Mr. McKay, who has characterized this as--I am going
to quote exactly what he says: ``The idea that I was pushing
too hard to investigate the assassination of a Federal
prosecutor is mind-numbing.''
If it is true, it is just immoral. And if it is false, then
the idea that the Department of Justice would use the death of
Tom Wales to cover up what they did is just unconscionable.
Mr. Gonzales. I am not----
Mr. Watt. Would you agree that it would be immoral and
unconscionable for you all to be firing somebody because they
were investigating the death of one of their own staff people?
Mr. Gonzales. That is a crime, and we have an obligation
to, of course, investigate it and prosecute those responsible
for it. I am not aware that the department, however, is using
that as a reason or excuse----
Mr. Watt. Well, you obviously haven't listened to the
testimony of some of the people in the department then, because
that was an excuse that was advanced initially.
And that is the problem here, Mr. Attorney General. There
are so many different excuses advanced at different times,
whenever it is convenient, that you have this appearance that
there is something else there.
And in this case, Mr. McKay also failed to aggressively, or
as aggressively, prosecute as some people thought he ought to
prosecute, and pursue some voting fraud cases that were taking
place after an election took place. And it might have had some
impact on a Democrat versus a Republican being elected.
So if that concern that the public is concerned about, Mr.
Attorney General, if that is at the bottom of this, that would
be an improper motivation for a termination and would be
illegal. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr. Gonzales. I agree that if, in fact, there was pressure
put on Mr. McKay to investigate a case which didn't warrant an
investigation--but obviously, there may be circumstances where
an investigation may have been warranted. And so we would have
to look at the circumstances of a particular case.
I don't recall that when I accepted the recommendation,
Congressman, that that was a reason for it, is his efforts with
respect to voter fraud.
But clearly, going back and looking at the documents and
the correspondences, there was a great deal of concern about
his efforts with respect to voter fraud. Because I received a
number of letters from groups and outside parties----
Mr. Watt. So you didn't fire him for that reason, but
somebody might have put him on the list for that reason? That
is really what you are saying, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Gonzales. Again, Congressman, I am assuming that this
Committee has spoken with everyone who provided input. And, of
course, the person who was compiling the information, Mr.
Sampson, would know better than I. Because I am a fact witness.
I haven't talked to these other fact witnesses about what
happened here.
Mr. Watt. I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Bob Goodlatte, the distinguished gentleman
from Virginia?
Mr. Goodlatte. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
General Gonzales, welcome. I know you may not particularly
feel like this is a welcoming occasion, but I do want to remind
everybody here that this is an oversight hearing that is
periodically held by this Committee on the United States
Department of Justice.
General Gonzales, you have the responsibility for thousands
of employees in your department. You have responsibility for
the enforcement of thousands of Federal laws related to
criminal activity that occur in this country.
And I would like to take the opportunity--while I know many
here have focused on the issue of the termination of seven or
eight, or whatever the number is, of those employees who were
terminated because it was your opinion and those who report to
you that they were not properly enforcing those laws and taking
necessary steps to do that, nonetheless there are many, many
dedicated employees of the department who are attempting to do
that.
So I would like to attempt to ask you about some of those
other areas that are very important to my constituents.
We have, in this country, millions of jobs related to the
creativity of our country. They are protected by our
intellectual property laws. And we face the loss of many of
those jobs, both here at home and overseas, due to people
stealing other people's creative ideas.
And I wonder if you could update us on your efforts to
enforce our nation's intellectual property laws against theft
of people's ideas due to violation of patent and copyright and
trademark laws that are protected in the United States
Constitution.
Mr. Gonzales. Well, we have got special units within the
FBI and within main Justice, involving prosecutors who focus on
intellectual property issues.
We have an intellectual property task force that was set up
under General Ashcroft. I have continued that. They came out
with a series of recommendations. All of those recommendations
have now been promulgated and set up.
We have embarked on an education campaign, reaching out to
students, informing them of the importance of intellectual
property, that it is something that, as Americans, we should
work to strive to protect.
We have reached out to the various trade groups, movies and
music industry, businesses, to talk about the importance of
this.
I have spoken with State legislators about the importance
of State laws to assist us, because there are limited resources
that we have to enforce and prosecute piracy, but perhaps
States can help us.
But this is an issue that goes beyond our borders. To be
effective, we have to also have the support of our friends and
allies overseas. And so we have had dialogues.
We have encouraged people to be participants in the
Cybercrime Convention, which will allow for greater sharing of
information that will help us with prosecutions.
So I think that we have got a good story to tell. But no
question about it that there is a lot of money to be made in
connection with intellectual property theft. And whenever you
can make a lot of money, people want to engage in that kind of
activity.
And so we really need to stay focused, and I look forward
to working in Congress to engage in a dialogue about what
additional laws, what additional tools would be helpful to help
us in dealing with this issue.
Mr. Goodlatte. Thank you, General Gonzales.
Another area that is of concern to a great many Americans
is the fact that we have a serious problem in this country with
illegal gambling. Last year it is estimated more than $6
billion went out of the country to untaxed, unregulated,
illegal sites.
There are many, many ills that have been identified with
gambling, particularly illegal gambling because of its lack of
any kind of regulation: family problems, problems with gambling
by minors, gambling addictions, organized crime, bankruptcy--
the list is long.
And Internet gambling poses a very problem because it
essentially puts a casino in everybody's home, much less down
the street or in a community where many communities have fought
against and do not have that type of gambling operations in
their community.
So I want to thank you for your leadership in combating
illegal gambling operations, and particularly your aggressive
prosecution of overseas Internet-based gambling operations that
violate U.S. laws. That has not gone unnoticed, and I would
like to applaud your efforts.
As you know, the Congress recently passed illegal Internet
gambling legislation to prohibit the acceptance of payment for
illegal Internet gambling bets, showing our commitment to
combating these activities. It passed by an overwhelming,
bipartisan vote, including Members on both sides of the aisle
in this Committee.
And I want to know if we can count on your to continue
these aggressive criminal prosecutions against illegal, online
gambling operations.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, Congressman. I want to thank the
Congress for this additional tool.
Obviously we are in the process now--the Treasury
Department working on regulations. They are consulting with the
Department of Justice, and hopefully we can make some progress
on that real soon.
Mr. Goodlatte. The prosecution of some of these----
Mr. Conyers. The time of----
Mr. Goodlatte. I apologize, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the general.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
The distinguished gentlelady from Los Angeles, California,
Maxine Waters?
Ms. Waters. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I would like to talk with you about
gangs in this country and the greater Los Angeles area. But I
won't do that today, because I think that your credibility is
on the line.
And you have been questioned about the firing of the eight
U.S. attorneys, and it appears to have been politically
motivated, even though there has been some denial of that. I
would like to ask you a few questions.
First of all, did you review the personnel files of these
attorneys after the accusation of them being fired for a
political reason? And did you see anything in their files that
showed that they had been reprimanded, they had been advised,
they had been charged with not handling their duties in a
responsible way?
Mr. Gonzales. Congresswoman, I look forward to talking with
you about gangs.
With respect to the U.S. attorney issue, what I did was
relied upon the judgment of those who----
Ms. Waters. Did you review the files after----
Mr. Gonzales. I did not review the personnel files----
Ms. Waters. Have you reviewed them at all since all of this
has taken place?
Mr. Gonzales. What I have done is I have gone back and
spoken to the Deputy Attorney General----
Ms. Waters. Have you reviewed the files?
Mr. Gonzales. I have not reviewed the files. I have gone
back----
Ms. Waters. So you don't know whether or not they had been
advised, they had been warned, they had been reprimanded about
their work at all?
Mr. Gonzales. I think the answer to that--I don't think
that they have. In fact, I think----
Ms. Waters. But you didn't review the files, so you didn't
look in their files whether or not they had been advised,
reprimanded, suspended or anything about their work? Is that
right?
Mr. Gonzales. I did not review their files.
Ms. Waters. You knew you were coming here today. You know
we have been trying to get unredacted documents from you about
what happened in your department. Did you bring them with you
today?
Mr. Gonzales. No, ma'am. I brought----
Ms. Waters. Are you resisting giving us the documents that
we are asking of you that is related to the firing of these
attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. No, ma'am. I am not involved in making
production decisions. And I am recused from----
Ms. Waters. Would you advise the department to give us
those documents?
Mr. Gonzales. I am recused from that, ma'am. I can't do
that.
Ms. Waters. Why are you recused from that?
Mr. Gonzales. Because I am a fact witness in this
investigation. And in order to avoid any appearance of
impropriety----
Ms. Waters. Can you tell us whether or not you have an
opinion that they should be given to us?
Mr. Gonzales. No, ma'am, I am not going to comment----
Ms. Waters. All right. Thank you.
Did you meet with the President about this issue?
Mr. Gonzales. Which issue is this, ma'am?
Ms. Waters. Did you and the President meet to discuss the
accusations of the politically motivated firing of these eight
U.S. attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. Ma'am, I disagree with your characterization
as politically motivated.
Ms. Waters. I am not characterizing. I am asking you, have
you met with the President of the United States to discuss what
has been accused of politically motivated firing?
Mr. Gonzales. Again, I would not characterize it as
politically motivated.
Ms. Waters. Well, okay. Have you met with the President of
the United States to discuss these firings?
Mr. Gonzales. I have a lot of discussions with the
President of the United States----
Ms. Waters. Did you discuss with the President of the
United States the fact that your department was being requested
to supply documents? Or did you advise the President?
Mr. Gonzales. I have not spoken to the President with
respect to document production. Again, Congresswoman, I am
recused from those decisions.
Ms. Waters. Did the President say anything to you about the
fact that documents had been requested of the White House and
asked your opinion about whether or not those documents should
be given to this Committee?
Mr. Gonzales. No, ma'am, the President has not asked for my
opinion as to whether or not the White House should turn over
documents. And, again, I am recused with respect to production
of DOJ documents and with respect to----
Ms. Waters. Okay. So you are recused and you can't talk
about whether or not you believe that this Committee should
have unredacted copies of documents that we have been trying to
get that are pertinent to these firings. You are recused from
that. You have no opinion about whether or not the oversight
Committee of Congress should have those documents.
You did not look at the files of the people who have been
in the news for weeks now where you have been accused, your
department, of politically motivated firings, you don't know
whether they were good employees, they were bad employees,
whether or not they had been reprimanded, suspended, advised or
anything.
You know nothing, is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. That is not correct.
Ms. Waters. What do you know, Mr. Attorney General?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, generally about this whole matter,
Congresswoman?
Ms. Waters. What would you like to tell us? You are here
today, and you know what we are focused on.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Ms. Waters. This is no secret.
I know that you have been in a number of hearings. I know
that you don't remember a lot. You have not shared with us
anything about the documents.
What can you tell us today that will help us to understand
why eight U.S. attorneys were fired, an unusual pattern that
CRS has reviewed and told us that there is a pattern here and
it doesn't look good?
Your reputation is on the line, Mr. Attorney General. What
do you have to say for yourself?
Mr. Gonzales. Congresswoman, what I have to say is that we
have provided a lot of information to the Congress about this
issue----
Ms. Waters. I asked you specifically about unredacted
copies that are pertinent to this investigation.
Mr. Gonzales. Again, Congressman, I am not involved in
making decisions about the documents to be provided or not
provided by the department----
Mr. Conyers. Let's allow the Attorney General to finish his
response to this question.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
With respect to redacted documents, it is my
understanding--and again, I haven't been involved. But it is my
understanding that the Congress has had access to the
documents. They have been able to see what has been redacted,
it is my understanding.
But, again, those are decisions that are not being made by
me in order to preserve the integrity of this investigation,
because I am a fact witness.
Ms. Waters. No, you are more than a fact witness, Mr.
Attorney General. The buck stops at the top.
Mr. Gonzales. And I accept responsibility----
Ms. Waters. If you accept----
Mr. Conyers. The gentlelady's time has expired.
Ms. Waters. I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank
you.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Steve King of Iowa?
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the Attorney General for being before this
Committee and submitting yourself to this process. And I think
it needs to be a dignified process, and I think we need to
respect you and the answers that you give. I believe that you
are giving openly and honest answers here before the Committee.
I would reflect back on some issues that were raised,
particularly by the gentlelady from California, with regard
to--and I am not going to characterize how she characterized
it, because I don't want to repeat some of the language that
went into this record and have it taken down, but the behaviors
and the activities of the U.S. attorney's office in that area.
Then the issue is raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin,
Mr. Sensenbrenner, about the investigation of a Member of
Congress and how that might affect the activities on the part
of your office.
And so I can't help but reflect upon a 500-page report that
was delivered to the Department of Justice regarding another
Member of Congress. And that investigation has been going on
since December of 2005. And that issue is still pending any
kind of resolution. And I believe that the Ethics Committee in
this Congress is awaiting the results of the investigation.
But the question I would ask to you is, if the Chairman of
the Justice Appropriations Committee happened to have had been
under that kind of scrutiny, could that affect the kind of
prosecution that takes place out of your Justice Department
with regard to that particular Member of Congress?
Mr. Gonzales. I would like to say no, quite frankly, I
think, because you have to understand that prosecutions, by and
large, are handled, and the investigations and prosecutions are
handled, by career officials. They go forward no matter what
happens. We want them to do that.
I have told every United States attorney to, ``Tell your
people, I don't want anything affected, whatsoever, by anything
going on Washington. I don't care who the target is--
Republican, Democrat, someone on the Hill, someone at the White
House. You follow the evidence; you do your job. That is what
the American people expect, and that is what I expect and
demand.''
Mr. King. And, Mr. Attorney General, you know, aside from
the President of the United States, what could be more
intimidating to the Department of Justice than to be involved
in an investigation of the Chairman of an Appropriations
Committee that had control directly of your budget? What could
be more intimidating than that with regard to an investigation?
Mr. Gonzales. We have to put that aside. Again, if the
evidence is there, we have an obligation to pursue it. And if
it is not there, then we stop the investigation.
But, clearly, this comes with being a prosecutor. Sometimes
it is going to put you in a very awkward, difficult situation.
But the American people expect you to do your job, and that is
what I expect of the prosecutors in the Department of Justice.
Mr. King. Let me say then, Mr. Attorney General, that if
that kind of circumstance, if the person that is in control of
your budget has his activities being reviewed by your
department--it is very well-published across this country and
not well-known in this Hill--if that does not affect your
investigation and your integrity has risen about that kind of
intimidation, then how in the world can any of these other
allegations be intimidating the investigation of the Justice
Department?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, without commenting on a
particular investigation, we have a job to do that the American
people expect we are going to do it.
Mr. King. And I would submit to this Committee that what I
have stated here is entirely true: that there is nothing more
intimidating than the scenario that I have laid out here, and
this scenario happens to be fact. All the rest of these things
that unfold are minor in comparison to this looming issue that
is here.
And if this Justice Department can be considered to be
conducting themselves above reproach with this investigation--
and I don't have any reason to believe they are not, and I want
to put that on the record--then the rest of these allegations
are essentially baseless.
And I would also submit that in my experience into the 11th
year of the legislation process that I have been involved in,
there has been nothing that has seen more opposition from a
partisan political standpoint than trying to provide integrity
into the electoral process.
And those investigations that were going on in the
southwestern part of this United States which were part of a
decision, I believe, that was made by your department to
dismiss a U.S. attorney down in that area, I think were met
with political opposition on the other side.
And if we are going to investigate this, then I would be
looking at some of the FBI officers that were doing the
investigations in those kind of cases.
And I would ask if you would care to comment on that, Mr.
Attorney General.
Mr. Gonzales. No, sir.
Mr. King. I didn't think you would.
I want to conclude then by saying thank you for being here
and thank you for this testimony. And I hope that we can raise
the level of this decorum and respect your testimony in an
appropriate fashion. I appreciate your service to America.
I yield back.
Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman.
And we now turn to Mr. William Delahunt, the gentleman from
Massachusetts, who is now recognized.
Mr. Delahunt. General Gonzales, we have heard about
delegation and the size of the department. And I think we all
understand that, and, obviously, the need to delegate powers
and authorities. But there are some powers and authorities that
you cannot delegate.
And you have been an ardent advocate for the Patriot Act.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Delahunt. You support it, you have come here, and you
have testified, correct?
Mr. Gonzales. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Delahunt. And you have the power to review information
regarding organizations and an individual to determine whether
they are terrorists. And you have the power to detain those
individuals. Is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. Depending on, of course, always relying upon
the recommendations, the analysis and views of----
Mr. Delahunt. I understand that. But you can delegate that
decision-making process to the Deputy Attorney General, but you
can't delegate it to a U.S. attorney or anyone else. In the
end, that is your decision to make, correct?
Mr. Gonzales. And, of course, I am head of the department,
and in the end I am responsible for----
Mr. Delahunt. I understand.
Well, back in March of 2005 an individual by the name of
Luis Posada Carriles entered this country illegally. He has had
a long and rather dramatic history of violence and, in fact,
has been convicted of acts of terrorism in other countries.
The most famous charge, of course--and this is referenced
in a series of FBI documents that are now in the public
domain--is that he was implicated in the midair bombing of a
Cuban airliner, resulting in the deaths of some 73 civilians.
I am sure you are familiar with that.
Mr. Gonzales. I am familiar with the news stories, yes,
sir.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, let me ask you this: Have you reviewed
this particular case?
Mr. Gonzales. I am aware of this case.
Mr. Delahunt. And have you made, at any point in time, an
assessment of whether this individual should be designated as a
terrorist and detained?
Mr. Gonzales. What I can say, Congressman, is that, of
course, I am concerned about what I know. And we have taken
steps in the courts to try----
Mr. Delahunt. I understand you have taken steps in courts,
but I would appreciate a direct answer.
Mr. Gonzales. What is the question?
Mr. Delahunt. Why have you not taken steps to designate
Luis Posada Carriles as a terrorist, given the overwhelming
information that exists in the public domain today?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, what I would like to do is go
back and look at this case so I can give you an answer. I want
to be totally accurate with you with respect to----
Mr. Delahunt. I understand. But this is your
responsibility----
Mr. Gonzales. And I want to be careful about what I can say
publicly. And so, again----
Mr. Delahunt. Well, I understand you have to careful. But
at the same time, have you undertaken a review of this case,
given the law authorizing you----
Mr. Gonzales. I am aware of the circumstances of this case.
But I am also aware that there are still matters and actions
ongoing within the department that have not been completed. And
I don't want to say anything that would in any way jeopardize
that.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, what we have now, given the decision
that was rendered this past week, is we have Mr. Posada
Carriles a free man in this country. You are familiar with
that.
Mr. Gonzales. I am aware of the judge's decision. We
obviously disagree. We are making estimates about what to do.
Mr. Delahunt. Well, let me reclaim my time, and let me read
a finding of the court that I find particularly disturbing, and
I would be interested in your response.
This is the judge, now. ``In addition to engaging in fraud,
deceit and trickery, this court finds that the government's
tactics in this case are so grossly shocking and so outrageous,
to violate the universal sense of justice. As a result, this
court is left with no choice but to dismiss this indictment.''
Now, in my previous life, I also was a prosecutor. I have
never in my 22 years as a prosecutor read that kind of language
coming from a court.
Mr. Gonzales. May I just say that I respectfully disagree
with the judge? And because this is a matter that is still
pending, I am not going to otherwise comment on her comments.
Mr. Delahunt. Right.
Well, let me go back again to the earlier question that I
posed, that the designation by yourself of Luis Posada Carriles
as a terrorist does not require, under the Patriot Act, an act
which you have supported and this Administration has advocated
for, does not require any judicial review.
Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Gonzales. I think that is a fair statement,
Congressman. But, again, with respect to your specific question
as to why hasn't this happened, I need more information. I
would be happy to hopefully get back----
Mr. Delahunt. With all due respect, Mr. Attorney General,
as my colleague from California said, the buck stops with you
on this one.
Mr. Gonzales. I understand.
Mr. Delahunt. This is not susceptible to being delegated
anywhere else. And I would hope you would take a hard look now.
Let me ask you this----
Mr. Conyers. The time of the gentleman has expired,
regretfully.
Darrell Issa, the gentleman from California, is recognized.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, General Gonzales, it goes without saying, and I am
sure you are well aware of it at this point, that I have been a
critic of the former U.S. attorney in San Diego, Carol Lam, who
was terminated.
And I was a critic not because she wasn't a fine
prosecutor, as a matter of fact, not because she didn't take on
big cases--she did that--but because of the exclusion of any
reasonable prosecution of coyotes, people who traffic illegally
in human beings, people who very well would bring terrorists
into our country.
And, in addition to that, I am very aware that she
willfully failed to prosecute gun crimes in any number similar
to the rest of the country or the rest of California.
Having said that--and I am going to ask you an off-the-cuff
question--are you aware of who Antonio Lopez was in that
district?
Mr. Gonzales. Is that his full name, Congressman?
Mr. Issa. He has a middle name. I apologize.
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I mean, I don't----
Mr. Issa. He trafficked 20 times and was arrested and not
prosecuted by Carol Lam. On the 21st time, we sent to your
predecessor a letter, signed by 19 Members of Congress----
Mr. Gonzales. I am now aware--I recall him, yes.
Mr. Issa. And we did so as a form of political pressure to
say, ``We want this type of prosecution. We believe the
President stands for this. And Attorney General Ashcroft failed
to take action. Carol Lam failed to take action.''
So, it is not without some special interest in this that I
believe that the policies of this President were, in some
cases, poorly executed by U.S. attorneys.
And I am here today not to support your management
capabilities or how much you delegated--I think you have
already apologized for not having a better management system in
place. I think you have already apologized for the fact that
U.S. attorneys may have, in many cases, not been through the
normal process of review--``You are not doing this; you have to
do better.'' I think we have all read e-mails that indicate
that that may not have been done very well.
But I am going to ask you the basis question, which is, if
you continue to serve for 20 more months at the pleasure of the
President, which I believe you will, will you, in fact, not be
gun-shy as a result of what happens here today?
And if you have a U.S. attorney who is not implementing the
stated public policies of this President, will you take any and
all measures necessary to make sure they are aware and they are
supportive of the stated policies of this present
Administration?
Mr. Gonzales. Contrary to being gun-shy, this process is
somewhat liberating in terms of going forward.
No, believe me, I think it is clear to the American people
what I expect of U.S. attorneys. The President is accountable
to the American people, and his priorities and policies can
only be implemented through people like myself and the United
States attorneys.
What I need to do a better job of is making sure that I
communicate with U.S. attorneys where I think that they are
falling short. And if I have concerns about their performance
or any thing else about what is going on in their district, we
need to do a better job communicating those concerns to the
United States attorneys.
Mr. Issa. General Gonzales, I would ask that you follow up
for the record with some of the steps you are going to take to
provide better guidance to 93 U.S. attorneys. And I look
forward to seeing those.
Let me follow up with, I think, the fair balance for some
of the things I have heard here today.
You weren't here at the beginning of this Administration as
the Attorney General, but you are aware of the termination of
the previous U.S. attorneys at the beginning of this
Administration. Do you recall the number that were terminated?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, eventually all of the United States
attorneys were terminated.
And what was unusual about that is that normally they are
staggered over a period of time. And as I recall, in connection
with the previous Administration, they were actually more
compressed. And so, the concern there is it is much more
disruptive. It is a greater shock to the system when you do it
all together at one time.
But having people removed over a staggered period of time
is something that has occurred before.
Mr. Issa. So under this Administration, 93 U.S. attorneys
were replaced. Some quit on day one; some were asked to leave
shortly thereafter; some were kept on for transition purposes.
And that was done in order to do the best job you could, in
spite of the fact every one of them was a Democrat political
appointee.
Mr. Gonzales. That is correct. And quite frankly, you know,
at the beginning of an Administration, we weren't prepared to
immediately nominate 93 new individuals. And so, it would take
a period of time. I think it is a matter of good management and
judgment. It would take some time before we were prepared to do
that.
Mr. Issa. And I applaud this Administration for doing it.
I might note that under President Clinton, 92 out of 93
were terminated immediately.
And just in the remaining time, how do you think that the
earlier Administration's immediate termination of 92 out of 93
affected morale and capability of doing the job versus the
technique that this Administration employed?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I don't want to comment on that, other
than to say that I think it is a better system to do it on a
staggered term, quite frankly, again, because it is less of a
shock to the system. We were not prepared to immediately, you
know, to nominate 93 individuals. So that was the way we felt
was the best way to----
Mr. Issa. And I applaud this Administration for being less
partisan at the beginning of its Administration, able to try to
put justice ahead of partisan behavior.
Thank you, Mr. General.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, sir.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Rick Boucher.
Mr. Boucher. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do not
have questions this afternoon. But I would be pleased to yield
the 5 minutes allotted to me to you, Mr. Chairman, if you have
questions.
Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman.
Attorney General Gonzales, let me follow up on a question
that has occurred here. Since the date of the firings on
December 7, 2006, have you discussed this matter with President
Bush?
Mr. Gonzales. What I can say is we have had a few
discussions, generally, where he has given me words of
encouragement. But not as to substance.
Mr. Conyers. So there has been some discussion, is that
fair to say?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, there has been some, but, again,
primarily, Mr. Chairman, where the President has given me words
of encouragement.
Mr. Conyers. Now, you have already indicated that you
talked to Mr. Karl Rove about the voter fraud matter in New
Mexico in October of 2006.
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure that I said it
was in October. I think it was in the fall of 2006.
Mr. Conyers. All right. Do you have information on whether
Karl Rove or any other White House staff member helped get Mr.
Iglesias on the termination list, either through Ms. Goodling,
who was liaison to the White House, or anyone else that might
be White House-like-liaison?
Mr. Gonzales. I have no personal knowledge, Mr. Chairman. I
don't recall now, thinking back, whether or not there is
anything in the documents. I am not sure that I have any
personal knowledge outside the documents.
Mr. Conyers. If you review that, we will be sending you
further inquiries about all the matters here. I wish you would
take a close look at that.
Mr. Gonzales. Of course, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. All right.
Now, we have already learned that Karl Rove has been
contacted by prominent New Mexico Republicans to try to remove
Mr. Iglesias as the U.S. attorney because of concerns about the
voter fraud matter.
Mr. Rove talked to you about the voter fraud matter in New
Mexico in the fall. Right?
Mr. Gonzales. That is my recollection. Not just New Mexico,
but also, as I recall, Philadelphia as well.
Mr. Conyers. A couple other places. All right.
And Mr. Iglesias appears on the termination list in October
or November----
Mr. Gonzales. I believe it was Election Day, November.
Mr. Conyers. It was November. Thank you.
Well, now, if we start following these bread crumbs, it
suggests that there could have been some connection between the
discussions between yourself and Mr. Rove and Mr. Iglesias
hitting the door, as an ex-employee.
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, you have more bread crumbs than
I do, quite frankly, because you have had the opportunity to
speak directly to other fact witnesses at the Department of
Justice. I was not surprised to see Mr. Iglesias recommended to
me, based upon previous conversations that I had had with
Senator Domenici.
Mr. Conyers. Well, you may have yet more bread crumbs than
I, sir, because you were the one that talked to Karl Rove. That
is a pretty big bread crumb.
Mr. Gonzales. I have a lot of conversations with Mr. Rove,
Mr. Chairman. I have no recollection that Mr. Rove ever
recommended that Mr. Iglesias be terminated. Again, what he was
conveying to me were concerns that had been raised with him
with respect to voter fraud prosecutions in these three
jurisdictions.
Mr. Conyers. Well, keep searching your memory on this,
because this has taken on quite a bit of significance and
importance, as you can understand.
Mr. Gonzales. I will continue searching my memory, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Mr. Randy Forbes, please, of Virginia?
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Attorney General, thank you for your patience in
being here today. It is sometimes interesting to me, because I
have seen hundreds and thousands of press releases going out,
attacking you. We have had all kinds of hearings like this. We
had a little demonstrations out there. And then Members of this
Committee will get up and question you about why people might
have some questions about your credibility and your ability to
lead in the country, even after seeing all of that generated
against you.
Second thing is, it was interesting to me earlier on, when
Ms. Sanchez was asking questions, she made this statement. She
says her words get turned around by this Committee. And if we
would turn around the words of a Member of this Committee,
heaven only knows what we might do with some of our witnesses.
And then it was interesting because within 5 minutes of her
statement there was a big inconsistency as to what she said
just 5 minutes before. And sometimes we are asking you to
remember things that you might have said or conversations that
you had months before.
But I was real interested with the line of questioning that
my good friend from California asked, and I would just like to
ask you this again. The total number of employees that you have
under your----
Mr. Gonzales. Within the department about 110,000 people.
Mr. Forbes. How much?
Mr. Gonzales. One-hundred-and-ten-thousand.
Mr. Forbes. And of those, how many attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. Ten-thousand to 15,000.
Mr. Forbes. Ten-thousand to 15,000.
And one of the things that we had recently, we had a
hearing in New Orleans about some of the crime activity that
was down there. We found out a staggering statistic: that the
State attorney down there, that there was apparently only 7
percent of the individuals that were arrested ended up going to
jail.
And if we found that statistic and we found that we had had
a President who was elected to go after crime and anybody on
this Committee contacted you and said, ``We just think that 7
percent of the individuals arrested would not be
satisfactory,'' would that be an appropriate thing for us to
raise to you?
Mr. Gonzales. Oh, no question about it.
Mr. Forbes. And if you had such an attorney like that,
would it be an appropriate thing for you to tell him if that
didn't change, that he may be removed, even if he was a good
attorney and a competent attorney?
Mr. Gonzales. Of course.
Mr. Forbes. And what we did also find out in that same
hearing that we had down in New Orleans was that the people
under charge, the U.S. attorney down there was actually having
between 93.5 and 99 percent conviction rates. So they had done
a good job.
But if you hadn't have taken those steps, we would have you
before us and we would be asking you those questions why. So we
want to compliment you for that job.
The other thing is, some of us are concerned about what we
see with gangs across the country, and the rise in gangs. And
if you sat down and made policy decisions that you wanted to
have U.S. attorneys go after networks of gangs, as opposed to
just waiting until individual gang crimes took place, would
that be a fair thing for any Member of this Committee to raise
to you and say, we think your U.S. attorneys need to be doing
that?
Mr. Gonzales. I would be very interested in hearing your
views about gangs. It is a serious issue in our country. And I
think we ought to be, and we are, focused on it.
Mr. Forbes. And you are. And if your U.S. attorneys were
not, would that be appropriate thing for you--even if they were
competent attorneys and good attorneys. But if they weren't
going after gangs in the direction that you felt appropriate,
from an administrative point of view, would that be reason to
make a change in that U.S. attorney's office?
Mr. Gonzales. If the U.S. attorney--now, of course, we
would endeavor to find out, okay, what are the reasons why? We
ought to have a conversation with that U.S. attorney. And if
the reasons aren't legitimate, of course it would be
appropriate.
Mr. Forbes. And if you didn't, we would bring you back for
a hearing and we would be criticizing you for that.
One of the other big things that many of us have been
concerned about is pornography and child pornography, and
especially pornography on that Internet. If you had U.S.
attorneys that weren't going after that in the manner that you
felt appropriate, that some of us felt appropriate, and that
wasn't getting prosecuted, would it be appropriate for us to
raise those issues with you?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I would be interested in hearing your
views about that.
Mr. Forbes. And if we did, and you felt those U.S.
attorneys, even if they were competent, were not prosecuting
those obscenity cases in the manner that you felt they needed
to be prosecuted, would that be reason for you to be able to
remove those U.S. attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. It would be. I would give the same answer.
You know, in hindsight, looking back, I would like to try to
find out the reasons why. And if there aren't good reasons,
then I think----
Mr. Forbes. Even if they were a competent attorney, if they
weren't moving in that direction.
The other big thing--and you have testified before us,
correctly so, that our number-one espionage problem in this
country was with China. And if we had U.S. attorneys that
weren't prosecuting that in what we felt was an appropriate
manner, would that be appropriate for us to raise that kind of
issue with you?
Mr. Gonzales. I would always be interested in hearing about
the concerns and views of Congress.
Mr. Forbes. And if they didn't modify that and they weren't
going after those espionage cases, would that be a reason for
you then to make a change with the U.S. attorney's office?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Forbes. Now, the other concern that I have, quite
honestly, is--you have been very patient in being here with us
today. You have got a lot of your staff members there.
How are these investigations impacting your ability and the
office's ability to go after some of these other concerns that
we have, whether it is child pornography, gangs, China
espionage? It is taking a lot of your time. How are you
balancing those?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I have to balance it. Because
obviously, this has raised some issues, some concerns of
Congress. I have an obligation to try to reassure Congress that
nothing improper happened here.
But on the other hand, I also have an obligation to the
American people. They expect me to continue to make sure this
country is safe from terrorism, that our neighborhoods are safe
and our kids are safe. And so, we have got to somehow make that
work.
I am not going to say that this hasn't been somewhat of a
distraction. But I think the department has remained focused on
doing the job the American people expect.
Mr. Forbes. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. Conyers. The Chair recognizes the distinguished
Chairman of the Intellectual and Property Rights Committee,
Howard Berman.
Mr. Berman. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I just thought I would make one brief
comment and then yield my time to my colleague from California.
I only know one of the U.S. attorneys that was asked to
resign, the gentleman from Washington, Mr. McKay. And I got to
know him because he was an appointee of President Bush's father
to the Legal Services Corporation.
I believe that when I hear what appeared to me to be the
flimsiest of reasons given to justify the decision to ask him
to resign, and put that in the context of the statements of the
Deputy Attorney General under your predecessor or under you,
Mr. Comey, regarding his performance in that job, I believe the
Justice Department comments about this gentleman's qualities
and his performance do a discredit to you, unless they are
rebutted by you.
Because my firm belief, as confirmed by Deputy Attorney
General Comey, is that this was an excellent public servant,
one of the best you had, performing at a quality that every
American should be proud of.
And with those comments, I yield to the gentlelady, Ms.
Sanchez.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Gonzales, I would like to pick up on a new line of
questioning here. We have had several people come and be
interviewed by the Committee and also come to present their
testimony in hearings.
And in his written responses to questions from the
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Daniel
Bogden mentioned that he had a conversation with Deputy
Attorney General Paul McNulty regarding his termination, in
which Mr. McNulty told him that the decision had come from
``higher up.''
To whom would Mr. McNulty, as Deputy Attorney General, have
been referring?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, the decision was clearly mine,
Congresswoman. It was my decision. I am accountable, and I
accept responsibility for these decisions.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay. And in his written responses to
questions from the Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law, Mr. Bogden noted that Mr. McNulty told him
that he had ``limited input'' in the final decision process to
terminate the U.S. attorneys.
Did you understand that the Deputy Attorney General had
only ``limited input''? Is that your understanding?
Mr. Gonzales. It was my understanding or belief that Mr.
Sampson was consulting with the senior leadership, including
and in particular, the Deputy Attorney General, because the
Deputy Attorney General is the direct report for these U.S.
attorneys, including Mr. Bogden.
But at the end of the day, no matter the level of
consultation, what I know is that Mr. McNulty, the Deputy
Attorney General, signed off on these names. And, in fact, on
the day of Mr. Sampson's testimony, I went to the Deputy
Attorney General, I said, ``Do you still stand behind these
recommendations?'' And he told me, ``Yes,'' and that, to me, is
the most important thing.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay, well, if the Deputy Attorney General had
only limited input--and that doesn't seem to trouble you--who,
to your knowledge, had more than merely limited input in the
final decision process?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again----
Ms. Sanchez. I mean, was that on your shoulders? Was that
you?
Mr. Gonzales. Again, Congresswoman, you probably have more
information about that than I. What I----
Ms. Sanchez. I am asking for what you know.
Mr. Gonzales. Okay, what I understood--and I only know
from--I haven't spoken with Mr. Sampson, I haven't spoken with
others, except the conversation that I just relayed to you with
respect to the Deputy Attorney General.
So I haven't spoken with others within the department and
asked them, ``Okay, did you consult on this? How do you feel
about this, these other witnesses?'' Because we are all fact
witnesses, I didn't want to interfere in this investigation.
Ms. Sanchez. Okay, so you don't know who had more than
merely limited input in the firing decisions?
Mr. Gonzales. It would be difficult for me to characterize
the involvement----
Ms. Sanchez. All right, I will accept that answer.
In his written responses to a question from the
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Mr. Bogden
mentioned that Acting Associate Attorney General William Mercer
explained to him that the Administration had a short, 2-year
window of opportunity to place an individual into his U.S.
attorney position in order to enhance that individual's resume
for either future political or Federal bench positions.
Do you believe that the Office of the U.S. Attorney is
merely a vehicle through which to provide party loyalists with
an opportunity to pad their resume and then use that as a
launching pad for elective office or a judgeship?
Mr. Gonzales. As head of the department, I would say no,
but there would be nothing improper in doing so. Again, these
are----
Ms. Sanchez. Do you think it is a good practice? I mean----
Mr. Gonzales. As head of the department, I would say----
Ms. Sanchez [continuing]. Improper but----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. I would care about making sure
that we have good people in these positions, people that could
discharge their responsibilities.
And, again, for the American people to understand, you
know, the success of the office does not live or die based upon
the U.S. attorney. It depends on the career individuals that
are there. Obviously, the U.S. attorney provides direction,
helps with morale. But I just want to make sure people
understand that if there is a change at the top, the work of
the department continues.
Ms. Sanchez. But just for clarification, it wouldn't bother
you if they used it as a vehicle with which to----
Mr. Gonzales. No, I didn't say that it wouldn't bother me.
What I am saying is----
Ms. Sanchez. Would that trouble you, then?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, it would depend on the person
coming in. I would want to make sure we have someone that could
do a good job as a U.S. attorney. And so, yes, that would----
Mr. Conyers. Time has expired. Please finish your comment.
Ms. Sanchez. I thank the gentleman.
And I yield back.
Mr. Conyers. The Chair recognizes the distinguished
gentleman from Indiana, Mike Pence.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chairman.
And, General Gonzales, welcome to the Committee. I am very
grateful for your service to the country.
Mr. Gonzales. Thank you.
Mr. Pence. And I especially want to take this opportunity
to congratulate you and the Justice Department on the
interdiction of six suspects earlier this week, apprehended in
connection with a planned terrorist attack on Fort Dix.
You have mentioned several times through your testimony
about the primary focus of your position being protecting
people of the United States. And I am grateful for that
specific example.
I also want to thank you for the admissions and the candor
and the humility that you have reflected today. It seems to me
there is an overarching principle here, that the President has
the authority to be served by whomever he pleases in his
Administration and, frankly, that he is able--it isn't often
repeated, so I will try and repeat it--he is able to dismiss
officials for any reason or for no reason at all. But he is not
at liberty, in fairness to all my colleagues, he is not at
liberty to dismiss persons for wrong reasons.
And it seems to me, your testimony today reiterates the
point that, while there were administrative errors that you
have been candid about, that at present, I, as a public
servant, have not seen evidence of wrongdoing.
And I appreciate you making that distinction again in this
public forum, repeatedly.
And I think it gets a little bit lost in the public debate
here, the distinction between errors and wrongdoing. There may
be consensus that errors were made, and a consensus that you
share, but I have not seen evidence of wrongdoing or wrong
motives in connection with these terminations.
But I appreciate the willingness of the department to
cooperate so thoroughly in providing documents and facilitating
witnesses before the Committee.
You made a comment in your opening statement that I found
provocative, on another topic. You said that it was part of the
mission of the Justice Department to ``preserve the public
integrity of our public institutions.''
And I wanted to call to your attention a legislation that
my colleague, Congressman Rick Boucher, and I, with the
original co-sponsorship of a number of distinguished
colleagues, including the Chairman of this Committee, that I
think supports that same objective, of pursuing and promoting
public integrity and public institutions. It is called the Free
Flow of Information Act. We have talked about it very briefly
in the past. A ``federal media shield'' is how it is referred
to euphemistically.
And while I believe it is among the principal objectives of
the Justice Department to hold public people accountable and
public institutions, I also believe that our founders intended
that a free and independent press was actually the chief
safeguard to public integrity. And, in fact, as a conservative,
I believe that the only check on government power in real-time
is a free and independent press.
And there has been a progeny of cases over the last 15
years and in successive Administrations, particularly in
independent counsel investigations, it seems to me, where there
has been a rising tide of instances where reporters have faced
threat of subpoena in Federal cases and, of course, in some
cases reporters have been jailed or threatened with jail time
to reveal confidential sources.
The sponsors of this legislation, which I hasten to add
also include a senior Member of this Committee, Mr. Howard
Coble, we really believe that compelling reporters to testify
and compelling reporters to reveal the identity of their
confidential sources intrudes on the news gathering process
but, more importantly, hurts the public interest.
I would say the Free Flow of Information Act, General, is
not about protecting reporters, it is about protecting the
public's right to know.
I just wanted to gain your assurance, without asking you to
comment in any significant way at this hearing, that--we have
moved this legislation through various incarnations over the
last 2 years, we have added more qualifications for national
security, for trade secrets, for imminent threat of bodily
harm. I would just like to have your assurance and that of your
capable staff that as this legislation, I think, moves through
this Committee in the months ahead, that your department, and
particularly the Criminal Division, would work with us to find
some way to put a stitch in this tear in the first amendment.
And I would welcome your comments but, again, would not ask
for you to comment substantively on legislation that you may or
may not have yet reviewed.
Mr. Gonzales. There is no Administration position on the
legislation, as I recall.
We have in the past opposed similar legislation,
Congressman. I haven't been convinced of the need for it, quite
frankly. The department has only issued, I think, 19 media
subpoenas for confidential sources since 1991. We have a very
strong process in place that has been in place for 30 years
with respect to how these get approved.
I ultimately have to approve such a subpoena, and so we
have been concerned in the past about the definitions, the
broad scope, and perhaps that is something that could be dealt
with through changes in the legislation.
You have my commitment. I would be happy to work with you,
so I will just leave it at that.
Mr. Pence. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. You are welcome.
Mr. Robert Wexler, the gentleman from Florida?
Mr. Wexler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With your permission, Mr. Attorney General, I would like to
follow the Chairman's questions regarding Mr. Iglesias.
If I understand it correctly, you testified that Karl Rove
talked to you about voter fraud in New Mexico in fall 2006.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, New Mexico and two other jurisdictions.
That is correct.
Mr. Wexler. Mr. Iglesias is selected for the termination
list in early November 2006?
Mr. Gonzales. I think on Election Day. Well, I don't
remember when he was selected. I wasn't involved in that
process.
Mr. Wexler. Right, it appears on the list.
Mr. Gonzales. Looking at the documents, it appears he first
appears on the list on Election Day.
Mr. Wexler. And it is your testimony you did not select Mr.
Iglesias to be put on the list, correct?
Mr. Gonzales. His name was brought forward to me,
recommended along with others.
Mr. Wexler. Right. You did not select him. Did Mr. Sampson
select him?
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Sampson was charged with coordinating
this effort.
Mr. Wexler. He didn't select him?
Mr. Gonzales. I have not spoken with Mr. Sampson about
this.
Mr. Wexler. Right. Did former Deputy Attorney General Mr.
Comey, did he select them?
Mr. Gonzales. Of course, he wasn't in the department at
that time, so----
Mr. Wexler. So he didn't select them.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. I don't think he selected them.
Mr. Wexler. That is right. Did Mr. McNulty select them?
Mr. Gonzales. I haven't asked that question to Mr. McNulty.
Mr. Wexler. Mr. McNulty told us he didn't select them.
Did Mr. Margolis select them?
Mr. Gonzales. Again, I haven't spoken with Mr. Margolis.
Mr. Wexler. He didn't select them.
We have talked a lot about the President's authority to
have who he wants where. Did the President select Mr. Iglesias
to be put on the termination list?
Mr. Gonzales. No----
Mr. Wexler. No, the President didn't select him.
Did the Vice President select him to put him, Mr. Iglesias,
on the termination list?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Wexler. No. Okay. So the President didn't, the Vice
President didn't, you, the Attorney General, didn't. All of the
assistant and former Deputy Attorney Generals didn't put Mr.
Iglesias on the termination list.
So who did?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, what is important, Congressman, is that
there was a consensus recommendation made to me. How he got on
the list was less----
Mr. Wexler. So a group of people put him on the list?
Mr. Gonzales. What is less important is that I accepted a
recommendation and I made the decision. I accept responsibility
for the decision.
Mr. Wexler. No, no, you made a decision, according to
yourself, as to accepting the termination list. But you have
also said you didn't put him on the list. So somebody else,
other than you, other than the President, other than the Vice
President, other than every Deputy Attorney General that has
come to this Committee, put him on the list.
But with all due respect, Mr. Attorney General, you won't
tell the American people who put Mr. Iglesias on the list to be
fired. It is a national secret, isn't it?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, if I knew the answer to that
question, I would provide you the answer. I have not spoken
with the individuals involved----
Mr. Wexler. So you don't know who put him on the list, Mr.
Iglesias. Why was Mr. Iglesias put on the list by this mystery
person?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, I wasn't surprised to see Mr.
Iglesias's name recommended to me, based upon conversations
that I had had with the senior senator from New Mexico. He had
lost confidence in Mr. Iglesias.
Let me just say, Mr. Iglesias's story is a great one, it is
the American dream, and there are many good things about his
performance, and I very much admire him as a person.
Mr. Wexler. But you won't tell the American people who put
him on a list to terminate his employment.
Mr. Gonzales. I accept responsibility for----
Mr. Wexler. You accept responsibility for making the
decision ultimately to accept the termination list, but you
will not come forth and tell the American people who put Mr.
Iglesias on the list to be fired.
Mr. Gonzales. Out of respect for the integrity of this
investigation and the investigations occurring at the
Department of Justice, I have not made that inquiry with
respect to other fact witnesses.
Mr. Wexler. But you were okay with firing them, but you
won't tell us who made the recommendation to fire them.
Mr. Gonzales. I think I was justified in relying upon the
senior leadership in the department, as I understand----
Mr. Wexler. Do you know what Mr. Moschella told this
Committee about why Mr. Iglesias was put on the list? He said
the rationale was because he was an absentee landlord. Are you
familiar with that?
Mr. Gonzales. I am familiar with Mr. Moschella's public
testimony.
Mr. Wexler. Right. He delegated authority, apparently, Mr.
Iglesias.
Mr. Gonzales. Well, let me just say this: I did not make
the decision with respect to Mr. Iglesias----
Mr. Wexler. I know. You haven't made any decision. You have
been very clear about that.
Mr. Gonzales. I accept full responsibility for this.
Mr. Wexler. But you won't tell us who put Mr. Iglesias on
that list?
Mr. Gonzales. You would have a better opportunity to
access----
Mr. Wexler. I would.
Mr. Gonzales. The Committee would, the Congress.
Mr. Wexler. Are you the Attorney General? Do you run the
Department of Justice?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I do. And it has been frustrating to me
to not be able to ask these kinds of questions. But I want to
respect the integrity of this investigation and the
investigations going on within the department. If we all came
up here, and had the same----
Mr. Wexler. When did the investigation in the department
start?
Mr. Gonzales. If we all came up here----
Mr. Wexler. It started after they were fired.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. Six of us, and had the same
testimony about events that occurred over 2 years, you would
look at that with great suspicion. You would wonder----
Mr. Wexler. Sir----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. Have you guys talked to each
other about facts?
Mr. Wexler. Sir, you know them, and it has nothing to do
with an investigation that is occurring after these people were
fired. Because you know the answer before they were fired,
because you know who put them on the list but you won't tell
us.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Tom Feeney of Florida is now recognized.
Mr. Feeney. Well, it is always fun to follow my passionate
Florida colleague.
Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here today. And
my colleague asked some questions that deserve answers,
especially given the confusion. You have admitted botched P.R.,
botched administrative procedures.
But are the questions that my friend from south Florida
just asked, are they the very questions that the Justice
Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, along with
the department's Office of Inspector General, is asking as we
speak?
Mr. Gonzales. That is certainly my understanding. I mean,
we have asked them to look into the allegations of any
wrongdoing. If in fact there were management missteps, you
know, what were they and what, you know, recommendations about
what we can do better going forward?
Mr. Feeney. And you are not interfering with that
investigation in any way?
Mr. Gonzales. I have recused myself from those
investigations. [Laughter.]
Again, because I don't want there to be any kind of
appearance of impropriety, of improper influence. And so I have
recused myself from oversight of those investigations.
Mr. Feeney. Now, the suggestion is you ought to be
micromanaging and involved in all those details. But my guess
is you would probably get some criticism if you were----
Mr. Gonzales. I would be criticized if, in fact, I was
doing such a thing, I suspect.
Mr. Feeney. Well, one way or the other, it is welcome to
public life.
We have spent extraordinary time asking the same questions
of you and many other witnesses. I think they are important
questions, and I think that we will all be expecting answers.
It is important to ask these questions, but it is not
important to ask the same questions to the same people ad
infinitum. But I will do one more and then we will move on to
some important things that the department is doing.
Are you aware of any evidence whatever that might tend to
demonstrate that people were asked to resign specifically in
order to interfere with ongoing investigations for partisan
purposes?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, we can say ``might tend to
demonstrate''--those are words that make me uncomfortable.
[Laughter.]
What I can say is, I know that is not the reason why I
accepted the recommendations. And I am not aware, based upon my
review of the documents, based upon the testimony that I have
seen, the public testimony, that people were motivated and
coming forward with recommendations for improper, for partisan
political reasons.
Mr. Feeney. There are an awful lot of critical tests that
your agency is asked to deal with.
I think, first, among equals, personally, in the
environment we live in, of counterintelligence and especially
and counterterrorism, I would like to know roughly what portion
of your personnel and resources, in today's environment, is
dedicated to making sure we don't have an attack on Fort Dix or
anywhere else in this country, by investigating through
counterintelligence and counterterror operations.
Roughly, what portion of the----
Mr. Gonzales. I don't know if I can break it down in terms
of assets or resources. I have made it clear that it is the
number-one priority for the Department of Justice. And it is
clearly the number-one priority for the director of the FBI.
And I want to thank Congress for the resources that have
been provided to, in particular, the FBI to ensure that this
country is safer.
Mr. Feeney. Well, and historically--by the way, there is a
great book, if you haven't read it, that Justice Rehnquist
wrote back in 1989, I believe, before major terror attacks,
talking about the balance between civil liberties, which is
very important to me, called ``All the Laws But One,'' quoting
Lincoln in his famous--civil liberties as opposed to the
security needs. And that balance tends to change based on the
perceived and the real threat.
And following up on that, I have to tell you, Attorney
General, that I was one that has been a strong advocate of the
Patriot Act and some of the other resources and powers that you
alluded to in your last response.
And so, I was very discouraged when we found that there
were thousands of mistakes and errors made. I will note that
the inspector general's report determined that there was no
evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the FBI. But I think we
could say that there was some very sloppy work done in
complying with the NSL authority.
I would like to know, just very briefly, what the new,
recently developed guidelines for the FBI regarding its NSL
authority are? Can you describe some of the major differences
in about a minute----
Mr. Gonzales. Well, our work there is not complete. The
director is thinking seriously about having a compliance and
audit unit to go back in and ensure that people are doing their
jobs.
We are looking at the whole question of the role of
lawyers, quite frankly, in connection with this issue, whether
or not there should continue to be a direct report to the
special agents in charge. Or maybe it should be the direct
report to the general counsel.
We are looking at a new computer system to have better
accountability in terms of the number of NSLs. We need to do a
better job with respect to our reporting to Congress. I know
that the director has required additional training, better
education about the use of NSLs.
But more fundamentally, the Inspections Division has gone
back in to try to get a better feel about are there additional
problems with respect in particular to exigent letters. The
I.G. has gone back in to do additional looks. And the National
Security Division and our privacy officer is watching carefully
about what is going on.
I have asked the inspector general of the department to
come back now, I think in 2 months, and give me a report about
how the FBI is doing. I take this very seriously----
Mr. Feeney. We will get a report when that has concluded?
Mr. Gonzales. We will provide you the information as we
learn about it.
Mr. Feeney. Thank you.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers. I thank the gentleman for his inquiry.
The Chair recognizes Steve Cohen from Tennessee.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Attorney General, I want to follow up a little bit on
Congressman Wexler's questions. You said you don't know who put
Mr. Iglesias on the list; is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. That is correct.
Mr. Cohen. But you said you knew the President and the Vice
President didn't. How do you know they didn't?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I just know that they would not do
that.
Mr. Cohen. Do you think Mr. Nulty or Mr. Sampson would have
done it? Obviously, you think they could have done it.
Mr. Gonzales. Of course. Look, I didn't envision the
President of the United States and the Vice President being
involved in this process. What I----
Mr. Cohen. But you don't know for a fact that they weren't
involved in the process through Ms. Miers or through Mr. Rove.
You don't know that.
Mr. Gonzales. That is correct. That is correct. But I had
no reason to believe that the White House--in fact, I know the
White House has said publicly they were not involved in adding
or deleting people from the list. That is what the White House
has said publicly.
Mr. Cohen. Right. And the White House asked you, as I
understand it in your statement, you say here that Deputy Chief
Kyle Sampson told you that the counsel to the President, Ms.
Miers, inquired about replacing all 93 U.S. attorneys, and you
both agreed that wouldn't be a good idea, it would be
disruptive and unwise.
So at one point the White House wanted to replace all 93.
So when they wanted to replace all 93, why do you think they
wouldn't want to replace eight?
Mr. Gonzales. What I have testified also is that I don't
know whether or not Ms. Miers thought this was a good idea,
whether or not this was even Ms. Miers' idea. She raised this
as an idea. We quickly said no----
Mr. Cohen. Did you ever talk to Ms. Miers, to Mr. Rove or
to anyone else, or communicate to Ms. Miers or Mr. Rove or
anyone else as to why they wanted to remove all 93 U.S.
prosecutors?
Mr. Gonzales. I have no recollection of having that kind of
conversation with Ms. Miers or Mr. Rove.
Mr. Cohen. And do you have any recollection of a letter to
or from them?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't. But going back and looking at the
documents, there was some e-mail traffic I think in late
December of 2004, early January of 2005, about a conversation
involving Mr. Rove stepping into the counsel's office about,
what are we going to do about U.S. attorneys?
And then there was a subsequent e-mail back from Mr.
Sampson. It is all in the record and I don't recall a
conversation with Mr. Sampson during that period of time. This
would have been during Christmas week, just 10 days or 2 weeks
before my confirmation hearing, and so I have no recollection
of that.
But I do remember, as I have gone back and looking at the
documents, there was some e-mail traffic about U.S. attorneys
just before I became Attorney General.
Mr. Cohen. These eight individuals who were fired, one of
them was Mr. Cummins. Did you inquire into why Mr. Cummins was
fired?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, when you asked did I inquire
when, I mean, Mr. Cummins was asked----
Mr. Cohen. Why? Why? Not when, why?
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Cummins was asked to leave in June, June
14, not December 7. He was not part of that group. And a change
was desired by the White House because they had identified a
well-qualified individual that they wanted to have as a United
States attorney.
Mr. Cohen. Who was the well-qualified individual? His name
hasn't surfaced yet.
Mr. Gonzales. Tim Griffin was the person----
Mr. Cohen. Oh, he was well-qualified?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, he certainly had more--well, I don't
want to disparage Mr. Cummins, but, yes, if you look at----
Mr. Cohen. You are not disparaging Mr. Cummins.
Mr. Gonzales. Again, if you look at his qualifications in
terms of having prosecution experience, being in the JAG Corps,
serving in Iraq, yes, I think he was a well-qualified
individual.
In fact, Mr. Cummins----
Mr. Cohen. But why was Mr. Cummins asked to leave? Because
they wanted to put somebody else in?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes. It is my understanding, I think that is
a fair characterization. I might also add that----
Mr. Cohen. Then let me ask----
Mr. Gonzales. Can I finish my answer, Congressman--that in
December, there was a newspaper article, I think The Arkansas
Times, which indicated that Mr. Cummins was quoted as saying,
you know, ``I have got four kids, I have to pay for their
college. They will be surprised if I don't''----
Mr. Cohen. Thank you. We have been through that. And Mr.
Cummins said he didn't intend to resign.
You at one point said, as did your deputy, that all of
these resignations are firings, were performance-related. Now,
obviously Mr. Cummins was not performance-related. So what you
said at that point was wrong.
Mr. Gonzales. And I think I clarified that in my last
Senate Judiciary Committee meeting.
In fact, that was the reason for my anger in an e-mail that
was on February 7, following the Deputy Attorney General's
testimony, is because I had confused in my mind Mr. Cummins
being asked to leave on June 14 with the others being asked to
leave on December 7. And what I was thinking about in my
testimony was those individuals asked to leave on December 7
related to performance, and did not in my mind think about Mr.
Cummins, who was asked to leave----
Mr. Cohen. Did you inquire as to why each of these eight
individuals were asked to leave?
Mr. Gonzales. I do not recall, Congressman, the
conversation that occurred when the recommendations were
brought to me. I am sure we had discussions about----
Mr. Cohen. Don't you think that when an individual who is a
public official, who is out there in the public line, who is an
attorney whose reputation is so important to having their
license to practice law, that they are asked to resign from a
position that there should be a compelling reason and that you,
as their appointed official, should ask and inquire why and
realize and come to a belief that there is a compelling reason
for them to be determined, and not just accept some mysterious
group's recommendation?
Mr. Gonzales. I think a compelling-reason standard is much
too high for those of us who are appointed by the President of
the United States, and we serve at the pleasure of the United
States. And we all understand that. We all know that, by
statute, U.S. attorneys serve for 4 years. Thereafter they are
holding over. These United States attorneys had served for 4
years.
But no question about it, as a management function, yes, I
think we should have done better in terms of communicating with
them. We don't owe them the jobs. But I do think that we owe
them better.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman from Florida, Ric Keller?
Mr. Keller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Attorney General, I have to apologize. I had to
step out for a few minutes. I was here earlier. But we are also
having a hearing that I was conducting with the secretary of
education, Margaret Spellings, at the same time.
Mr. Attorney General, the Bush administration has about 20
months left on the clock. Tell me what your top two priorities
are going to be over the next 20 months that you would like to
accomplish.
Mr. Gonzales. I will give you three.
Mr. Keller. Go ahead.
Mr. Gonzales. I was on the South Lawn on September 11th
when President Bush arrived. And he and I both knew then that
after that our world had changed and that the priority of the
law enforcement community would change. And so, moving forward,
my top priority will continue to be making sure that America is
safe. That is the first thing.
Secondly, I don't think it is possible for people to
realize the American dream if they live in fear of gangs, they
live in fear of drugs, they live in fear of violent crime. And
so that is the second thing, doing what we can to ensure that
violent crime is reduced.
Finally, I wear this wristband given to me by Mark
Lunsford. His daughter Jessica was killed by a sex offender.
And it is a reminder of my commitment and my obligation to make
sure that our kids are safe.
Those are the things that I am going to be focused on.
Mr. Keller. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
You have been through more public scrutiny, and probably
some pain, in the last month, more than most people have in a
lifetime. As a prominent Cabinet member, U.S. attorney, or U.S.
Attorney General, you could leave today and make $1 million a
year at a law firm pretty easily, but you are staying on and
want to stay on.
Is it because of your passion for those three things:
violent crime, terrorism and getting after child predators?
Mr. Gonzales. I got into public service because I wanted to
do something where I could make a difference, a positive
difference in people's lives. I fundamentally, deep down,
believe that I can continue to do so.
If I don't think that I can be effective as Attorney
General, I will no longer continue to serve as Attorney
General. I have got confidence and faith in the people that
work in this department. And I think we can continue to serve,
effectively, the American people.
Mr. Keller. Mr. Attorney General, when I am asked at town
hall meetings about what is going on with this U.S. attorney
situation and you, I tell folks back home that it can all be
summarized, the microcosm of this whole, what the media calls a
scandal, in one case: And that is the case of Carol Lam.
Carol Lam was a talented lady, U.S. attorney from San
Diego, who had successfully prosecuted Duke Cunningham. She
also is a lady who had some concerns with your department. I
think she was 91 out of 93 in firearms. And I learned, from
going to San Diego and talking to folks that she had failed to
prosecute alien smugglers, even those who had been arrested 20
times.
Now, you let her go, or told her she was going to leave in
December of 2006. And immediately we heard the allegation from
some in the media and some Members of Congress that Carol Lam
must have been fired because she prosecuted a public corruption
case against Republican Duke Cunningham.
Now, I went through and reviewed the documents, talked to
people, including Carol Lam. And the timeline is crystal clear.
The documents regarding her failure to prosecute alien
smugglers, including those who had been arrested 20 times,
began in Congress in February of 2004 with Darrell Issa, which
is literally 16 months before the local San Diego Union-Tribune
broke the very first story about the Duke Cunningham scandal,
which shows me that it is literally impossible that that was an
improper motive on your part or anyone else.
So, let me ask you directly: Did you ask Carol Lam or any
of the other U.S. attorneys to resign because they were
prosecuting or investigating public corruption cases against
Republicans?
Mr. Gonzales. No. In fact, I am very, very proud of the
work of the department in prosecuting public corruption cases.
I don't care whether or not we are talking about Republican or
Democrat. We are doing our job.
Mr. Keller. Did anyone at the White House, including but
not limited to the President, Karl Rove, Harriet Miers or Josh
Bolten, ever come to you and say, ``We want you to fire Carol
Lam,'' or any other U.S. attorney, ``because they are going
after a Republican congressman''?
Mr. Gonzales. They didn't say it to me, and I am not aware
of any such direction.
Mr. Keller. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
I will yield my remaining time to Mr. Cannon. I think the
gentleman would like to make a couple of points here.
Mr. Cannon. Going back to Mr. Margolis--who, again, is a
very senior career employee--and his view about the Griffin
appointment, I should say directly or indirectly. I also, to be
fair to Griffin, his resume at the time I interviewed him
looked better for the job than Cummins' did when I interviewed
him.
Here was a guy who is not political, who is saying that
Griffin was well-qualified. Remember, Griffin was in Iraq. He
was in DOJ. He was a judge advocate general. And so we have
lots of views on these issues that haven't been out here yet,
which indicate that at least in the case of Cummins we have
some pretty good information about why he was supplanted.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cede----
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, could I make one comment?
It bothers me to have to disparage individuals and to be
critical openly about people who worked for the department. And
I just want to make a general observation that these are all
very, very fine people. And they should be proud of their
service. We should all be proud of the fact that they had the
courage to engage in public service. And I don't want anyone to
think that I don't otherwise appreciate the fine work that they
did on behalf of the department.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
Georgia, Hank Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Gonzales, you have led a distinguished career as a
lawyer, law school professor, partner major Houston law firm,
general counsel to then-Governor George Bush, a justice on
Supreme Court of Texas, White House counsel to President George
Bush. And now you have ascended to the responsibility of
Attorney General of the United States.
And in that connection, you hired as your top two aides Mr.
Paul McNulty, the Deputy Attorney General--over 20 years of
distinguished experience on the Federal and State levels, much
of which was spent as a U.S. attorney. And your number-two man
was an Associate Attorney General, also close to 20 years of
distinguished experience, much of which has been spent as a
U.S. attorney and an assistant U.S. attorney.
Both of them, extensive trial experience and very well-
equipped to handle the tasks of their office, as you are.
But instead what you have done is delegated an
extraordinary amount of power to two young, inexperienced
aides, Ms. Monica Goodling and Mr. Kyle Sampson, neither one of
whom had any trial experience, neither one of whom--I think Mr.
Sampson may have tried one case in his life--and neither one of
whom had any law enforcement background whatsoever.
But yet you signed on March 1st of 2006 a secret order
delegating the power to those two inexperienced aides to hire
and fire major career employees of the Justice Department,
including the Criminal Division, including U.S. attorneys and
assistant U.S. attorneys. And you did not even inform your
Deputy Attorney General and your Associate Attorney General
that you had delegated that power.
Can you tell us why you did that?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes. There is a lot there, Congressman.
The actual decision in terms of reserving to the Attorney
General certain personnel decisions was actually made through
regulation which became public in February. And as a result of
that change in the regulations reserving the authority on
certain personnel----
Mr. Johnson. Those were put through at your insistence,
correct?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. You changed the rule so that you could give
the power to hire and fire to Kyle Sampson and Monica Goodling.
Mr. Gonzales. We haven't gotten to that point yet.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I don't want you to take all my time. I
just want you to answer those questions.
Mr. Gonzales. But I want to give you a complete answer,
Congressman.
And so, there was nothing secret about the change in terms
of reserving to the Office of the Attorney General that kind of
authority. Now----
Mr. Johnson. You did not let your Deputy Attorney General
know about it, did you?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, they were ultimately told--as I
understand it, they weren't told through the executive process,
because my understanding----
Mr. Johnson. You said not to tell your Associate Attorney
General?
Mr. Gonzales. My understanding is that they were told of
the change.
Mr. Johnson. You didn't tell them yourself?
Mr. Gonzales. I did not have the specific conversation with
him.
Mr. Johnson. Well, let me ask you this question: What
exactly did Monica Goodling do insofar as her job as White
House liaison? What employment decisions did she make about
career and noncareer personnel in the Department of Justice?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, of course, let me just say that she
discharged--her responsibility was to discharge the normal
responsibilities for a White House liaison.
Mr. Johnson. Including making decisions about hiring and
firing career and noncareer personnel for the Department of
Justice? Correct?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, with respect to political appointees--
--
Mr. Johnson. Is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. That would certainly be
appropriate. Now, with respect to career----
Mr. Johnson. I mean, is it correct that she----
Mr. Gonzales. Was involved in?
Mr. Johnson [continuing]. Was involved in making hiring and
firing decisions pertaining to DOJ career and noncareer
personnel? Is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. Let me just say that she was involved to
political appointees and with respect to career appointees,
there has been some fairly serious allegations made with
respect to her role in that. And has already been made public
because of the seriousness of those allegations, that matter
has been referred for an investigation, so----
Mr. Johnson. Right. Did Mr. Sampson----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. I am not going to comment.
Mr. Johnson. Did Mr. Sampson have the same power, as well,
under your memorandum?
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Sampson would have the same--he was
included as part of the delegation. You described----
Mr. Johnson. And did he, in fact, play a part in making
personnel decisions about Department of Justice career and
noncareer personnel?
Mr. Gonzales. Certainly with respect to noncareer. I can't
sit here today and tell you----
Mr. Johnson. Okay. And were either one of them part of the
team that put together the list which included the eight
attorneys who were let go on December 7, 2006?
Mr. Gonzales. No question about it. I had charged Mr.
Sampson with organizing and coordinating the effort to
gathering information and present to me recommendations. Ms.
Goodling assisted Mr. Sampson in the discharge or a wide
variety of responsibilities, and if you look at----
Mr. Johnson. And you don't know of anyone else who assisted
them?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, if you look at the e-mail traffic and,
from what I understand, from public testimony, obviously there
were people who provided input and information.
Mr. Johnson. Who would that have been?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, I think, again, based upon looking at
the documents, obviously, issues relating to Ms. Lam were
raised with me, and I believe that was done by Mr. Bill Mercer.
My understanding is that in fact Mr. Comey was in fact
consulted about his views about U.S. attorneys.
And so, I mean, if you look at the public testimony and if
you look at the documentation, there were people that were
being consulted. They may not have known that they were
providing information which would then form the basis of some
kind of list.
Mr. Johnson. Can you name of the people who were involved
in the compilation of the list?
Mr. Conyers. The time has run out. Did you want to finish
the response, Mr. Attorney General?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Johnson. Can you name--well, if I might get a response
to you to that last question--can you name any others who were
involved in the decisions to put those eight names on the list?
Mr. Conyers. Could you----
Mr. Johnson. Are you going to answer me or what?
Mr. Conyers. No, he is not answering because your time has
expired.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. But I recommend that you put it in written
communication to the Attorney General.
From Arizona, Mr. Trent Franks, the gentleman is recognized
at this time.
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Judge Gonzales, for coming down here. I know
that life has been kind of challenging for you lately.
[Laughter.]
And I want you to know that I personally appreciate your
service to the country. You have a profoundly difficult job.
And, you know, I was touched by the three priorities that
you mentioned, with your job, in being able to combat terrorism
and being able to combat gang violence and to protect our
children from some of the tragedies that occur out there. And I
want you to know I believe that those are very noble
aspirations.
It occurs to me that, every day that we have you down at
this place, that we are detracting from those vital missions in
this country.
And so, if indeed our effort here is to find corruption in
the Justice Department, where justice itself is being
undermined and where some of the potential accusations here are
that your department is undermining justice in specific cases
by hiring and firing U.S. attorneys, then I think that our
efforts here are justified.
But if indeed they are politically motivated or not to that
end, then we become guilty of the very thing that has been
thrown in your direction.
So I want to ask a very direct question. You know, we
understand that there is a difference between political
motivations and motivations to thwart a criminal investigation
or to affect a particular case or to undermine justice.
Now, in this country, we have partisan elections. And when
we put a President in office, we expect that person to appoint
people that reflect the philosophy that we voted for. That
comes with the job. I mean, Mr. Clinton fired all the U.S.
attorneys. So we expect that.
And political motivations, even though they are tossed
about like this, something bad here, those are part of our
system and they are intrinsic to its survival.
On the other hand, if someone in your position or in your
department should deliberately try to intimidate or fire a U.S.
attorney in order to affect a particular case or undermine
justice or prevent justice from occurring in a particular case,
that is a crime, and that is wrong.
So I ask you very directly, sir: Have you ever fired anyone
or caused anyone to be fired or influenced anyone to be fired
on the basis of trying to affect a particular criminal case or
investigation, or to thwart justice in any way?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Franks. Do you know of anyone in the Administration or
your department that has done either of those things?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Franks. See, I think, Mr. Chairman, that is indeed the
job of this Committee, is to ask those very direct questions.
And, of course, time and justice has a way of prevailing.
And the truth of those answers--of which I have to say to you I
have seen no evidence that either of those things have
occurred, before this Committee or otherwise--but time will
probably bear that out one way or the other.
But I just wanted to make sure that we understood what we
are all about here. And your job is protecting this country.
And while we are interviewing you like this, it cannot possibly
help but detract from what you are trying to do to protect this
country and to pursue those three priorities that you mentioned
earlier.
So I guess one of the things I would like to do, Judge
Gonzales, is to ask you, what do you think is the public's
greatest misperception of the Department of Justice at this
time, given all the circumstances that have occurred here?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, given some of the statements that have
been made, the notion that the department has been politicized.
As I indicated in response to an earlier question, there
are only a few hundred political appointees. There are tens of
thousands of career individuals. The department is great
because of the career individuals. They deserve all the credit
for the success of the department.
And it would be pretty darn difficult, if not impossible,
to make a decision for political reasons and expect to get away
with it. If, in fact, a career investigator or prosecutors felt
that we were making decisions for political reasons to
interfere with a case, you would probably hear about it. We
would probably read about it in the papers, because they take
this stuff very seriously, as they should. We expect them to.
And, again, I just want to emphasize to the American public
that the work of the department continues, irrespective of who
the Attorney General is, United States attorney is. It
continues because of the great career people in the department.
Mr. Franks. Well, Judge Gonzales, let me just thank you for
your service to this country and the cause of human freedom.
And with that, I would like to defer here the rest of my
time to Steve King.
Mr. Conyers. Twenty-nine seconds remain, Steve.
Mr. King. I thank the gentleman from Arizona, the
constitutionalist quodetile himself, and the Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I, like all Members of this Committee, are
interested in maintaining our credibility. And I have an
article here from the Wall Street Journal dated April 7, 2007,
that and associated articles, and I ask unanimous consent to
introduce them into the record.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
[The articles follow:]
Articles published in various sources, submitted by the Honorable Steve
King, a Representative in Congress from the State of Iowa, and Member,
Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the Attorney General for his testimony
here today.
And I appreciate the tone and the tenor of the gentleman
from Arizona. And we all are concerned about the safety of the
American people, and it has been extraordinarily safe since
September 11th, given what we anticipated.
And I would yield back to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. Franks. And I just thank the gentleman for coming.
Mr. Conyers. Members of the Committee, we are trying to
finish up as close to 2:30 as possible. And so the Chair is
going to be very strict with the time from this point on.
And we recognize the gentleman from California, Brad
Sherman.
Mr. Sherman. Thank you.
The Administration has put forward various theories under
which anyone, even American citizens, could be arrested without
being charged with a crime. One of these is the theory that you
could be classified as an enemy combatant.
Are there any American citizens being held today for over a
month who have been denied habeas corpus or access to an
attorney?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't believe so, Congressman.
Mr. Sherman. Wouldn't it be your duty as Attorney General
to make sure that their rights to habeas corpus were honored?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, but, you know, there are a lot of
people in this government, and sometimes people do things that
they shouldn't be. And I am not suggesting that that is
occurring here, but you are asking me, you know, a question
that I hadn't really thought about.
Mr. Sherman. Is there any agency answerable to the--well,
is there any part of the Department of Justice----
Mr. Gonzales. We are all answerable to the Constitution and
to our laws, yes.
Mr. Sherman. Now, are there any U.S. citizens being held
now by foreign governments or foreign organizations that are
without access to attorneys as a result of rendition where
agents of the Administration have taken people into custody and
then given them up to foreign officials?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't, Congressman, I don't know if I have
the answer to that question either. It is something that I
would have to look at.
Mr. Sherman. Wouldn't you, as the chief office responsible
for protecting our civil rights, want to know?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, and I am not suggesting that that----
Mr. Sherman. I would hope that----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. Is occurring. I just, quite
frankly, I haven't thought about this.
Mr. Sherman. Will you respond for the record to those
questions? Thank you.
Mr. Gonzales. I would be happy--if I can respond to the
questions, I will do that.
Mr. Sherman. Let me move on to another question. You now
have focused more on these--yes, go ahead.
Mr. Gonzales. I don't want the press to run out and say,
``Oh my gosh, U.S. citizens are being held by the government
secretly, other governments.'' I don't think that is the case.
I just want the American people to understand that.
Mr. Sherman. I look forward to a definitive answer for the
record, and let's move on.
You have now spent more time looking at these eight U.S.
attorneys then you might have expected to. Are there any of
them that you think it was a mistake to fire and that it would
have been in the interest of the Administration of justice to
have left at their posts?
Mr. Gonzales. You know, I have gone back and thought a lot
about this. You are right. And, in fact, I spoke with the
Deputy Attorney General after Mr. Sampson's public testimony
and asked him, ``Okay, do you still stand by the
recommendation?'' And the answer was yes.
I think the one that is probably the closest call for me is
Mr. Bogden in Nevada, and I talked about this in my Senate
testimony. It is for that reason that I have reached out to Mr.
Bogden and have offered my assistance in trying to help him,
move him forward with employment.
But again, the standard is, was anything improper here----
Mr. Sherman. I am not asking improper; we all make
mistakes.
Mr. Gonzales. I stand by the decisions. I stand by the
decisions.
Mr. Sherman. So if you had it to do all over again, these
eight would be toast.
Mr. Gonzales. No, because, again, we would have used a
different process, and I don't know whether or not, using this
different process, the same recommendations would have come to
me. I relied upon the recommendations.
Mr. Sherman. Well, I am asking you whether you made a
mistake, not whether you liked your process. Did the conclusion
to fire these eight----
Mr. Gonzales. I think----
Mr. Sherman [continuing]. Was that the right, best thing to
do for the administration of justice?
Mr. Gonzales. I think I stand by the decision. In
hindsight, I am not happy with the process. I know that, to me,
the process is important too, and I think using a different
process, we may have come out with different recommendations to
me which would have made a difference, perhaps.
Mr. Sherman. Well, let me move on. You have said that it
would--you know, U.S. attorneys deal with political sensitive
investigations. It would be wrong to fire one in order to
thwart an ongoing investigation.
Would it be wrong to fire a U.S. attorney because he failed
to announce indictments before an election date?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, of course, with respect to making
public an indictment, that is something, particularly if you
are talking about an announcement on or around election, you
may get criticized if you do it before the election; you may
get criticized if you do it after the election. What I tell
people is try to be sensitive and do what is best for the case.
Mr. Sherman. Let me move on. Let's say an investigation had
been completed and it was politically painful to your party how
it went, somebody got indicted or convicted. Would it be wrong
for you to fire a U.S. attorney after the investigation, not
for the purpose of thwarting the investigation, which had
already been completed, but for the purpose of rebuking that
attorney for having chosen to investigate those associated with
your political party?
Mr. Gonzales. I am not sure I am comfortable with answering
that question. I will say this----
Mr. Sherman. Do you think it might be okay to fire somebody
because they successfully completed an investigation?
Mr. Gonzales. Let me just give an example of the way we
deal with these cases: Representative Bob Ney. We accepted a
plea from Representative Ney 6 weeks before the election. We
didn't have to do that before the election. I am sure there
were some Republicans around the country who sort of scratched
heads when we in fact took that plea right before the election.
Why did we do that? We did it because we aren't motivated by
politics. We do what is best for the case.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you very much.
Steve Chabot of Ohio, Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on
the Constitution.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, Attorney General Gonzales, for being here
today.
I want to apologize for not having been here for the
entirety of this hearing, because I am the Ranking Member on
the Small Business Committee and for the last couple of hours
we had a hearing on that. So, in any event.
General Gonzales, last August I want to thank you for
coming to my district, the city of Cincinnati. And you joined
with us there--myself, chief of police and others--to
participate in a roundtable discussion with local city and
Federal law enforcement officials such as the U.S. attorney,
Mr. Lockhart, there and FBI Special Agent in Charge Tim Murphy.
And the roundtable focused on the violent crime problems
that continue to plague communities all over the country
including my city, Cincinnati.
During that meeting, several federal-local cooperative
approaches were discussed to reduce gun violence and illegal
drug use in the region, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods. In
addition, you announced the addition of 23 new Federal
prosecutors in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force,
including one for southwest Ohio. Cincinnati is located in
southwest Ohio.
My question to you, General Gonzales, is: What has the
Department of Justice been doing, and what are you willing to
do to address violent crime and gun violence? And has the
addition of a Federal prosecutor in southwest Ohio resulted in
increased Federal prosecutions? And has funding assisted the
local FBI, DEA and ATF special agents in charge in their
investigations of gun violence and illegal drug use and violent
crime?
I know that is a lot in one question.
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, I will answer the specifics in
terms of Cincinnati. I would like to be able to get back to you
and give you accurate numbers.
But let me just say, I think we have enjoyed a good period
in terms of decline in crime rates. We are starting to see,
however, some disturbing upticks in certain communities around
the country.
And it is for that reason that we initiated this 18-city
tour recently, where we sent out DOJ officials to communities
around the country, where some communities have enjoyed success
in reducing crime; others have not been so successful. Trying
to understand the reasons why--what is working, what is not
working. We are very close to be in a position to talk about
what we have learned and perhaps make some recommendations.
I am worried about it. Again, as I indicated in response to
an earlier question, I don't think people can really realize
America's promise if they are worried about their
neighborhood--safety, guns, drugs, gangs. This is something
that I view as one of the things I am going to be focused on in
these remaining months in the Administration, because I think
it is important as the Attorney General to do that.
Before 9/11, Project Safe Neighborhood was the number-one
domestic law enforcement program for the Department of Justice,
which is to reduce gun crime. And so we are still going to
remain focused on that.
I am worried about gangs. It is going to require the help
of our neighbors down south. I am going to a regional anti-gang
summit in June with the attorney generals from Mexico and
Central American countries, because we can't just solve that
issue solely within the United States.
But I look forward to working with you on this issue. You
have been a terrific partner and a champion for your district.
And I hope there are additional things that we can do to help
you.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General.
And one final area I would like to explore briefly here. As
you know, the city of Cincinnati suffered through riots back in
April of 2001. And in April of this past year, the Department
of Justice made the decision to terminate its memorandum of
agreement with the city of Cincinnati, finding that the city
and police department have met the more than 80 provisions set
forth by the Department of Justice.
The city continues to work with local officials to meet
additional requirements that are set forth in a separate
agreement, which is known as the Collaborative Agreement.
The MOA between the city and the Department of Justice was
incorporated by reference into the Collaborative Agreement and
thus has played a significant role in the administration of the
Collaborative Agreement.
Will the Department of Justice acknowledge and support the
city's and the police's good faith efforts if any dispute were
to arise between now and termination of the Collaborative
Agreement?
Mr. Gonzales. We have always had a good working
relationship with the police. If there are things that we can
do to be helpful, of course we will look at that, Congressman.
In terms of what our official jurisdiction or authority may
be in this matter, we will have to wait and see. But, again, if
there are things that the department can do to continue to help
the citizens of Cincinnati be safe and that the citizens enjoy
their rights, we will be happy to look at that.
Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney General.
And I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes in some way the newest Member of
the Committee, Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin.
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, General Gonzales.
I want to ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a
New York Times article entitled, ``A Woman Wrongly Convicted
and a U.S. Attorney Who Kept His Job.'' Before submitting it,
there are just two paragraphs I would like to read.
It says, ``The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th
Circuit, which heard Ms. Thompson's case this month, did not
discuss whether her prosecution was political, but it did make
clear that it was wrong. And in an extraordinary move, it
ordered her release immediately without waiting to write a
decision.'' ``'Your evidence is beyond thin,' Judge Diane Wood
told the prosecutor. `I am not sure what your actual theory in
this case is.' ''
``Members of Congress should ask whether it was by
coincidence or design that Steven Biskupic, the United States
attorney in Milwaukee, turned a flimsy case into a campaign
issue that nearly helped Republicans win a pivotal governor's
race.''
I would ask unanimous consent to submit that for the
record.
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
[The article follows:]
Article published in The New York Times, April 16, 2007, submitted by
the Honorable Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. Gonzales. Could I respond?
Mr. Conyers. Yes.
Ms. Baldwin. At the time, I----
Mr. Conyers. Would you mind if he responded to that
article?
Mr. Gonzales. First of all----
Ms. Baldwin. I have lots of questions about it, so----
Mr. Gonzales. Well, go ahead. As long as we are talking
about that, that would be--I haven't read the article. I have
no idea of knowing whether what is in there is true or not,
but----
Ms. Baldwin. Anyway, I said, at the time of this remarkable
case in the 7th Circuit that I believed Congress should
investigate not only the circumstances surrounding the forced
resignations of eight U.S. attorneys but also whether partisan
politics influenced or even dictated the investigations
conducted by U.S. Attorney's Offices in order to stay in the
Administration's good graces.
And I am pleased to have an opportunity to ask you some
questions today.
General Gonzales, since your appearance before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, I am sure you have taken additional steps
to refresh your memory on subject matters that you did not
recall during that hearing.
So, let me ask you again, are you aware that Mr. Biskupic
was on the first known version of the list compiled by your
chief of staff, Mr. Sampson, dated March 2, 2005, recommending
names of U.S. attorneys to be fired?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, my understanding is, Congresswoman, is
that, actually, the list included all the United States
attorneys. And the documentation reflected, sort of, Mr.
Sampson's, I presume, then-current view of their performance.
But with respect to Mr. Biskupic, let me just remind
everyone, this was a career prosecutor who made the charging
decision on the Georgia Thompson case in consultation with the
then-Democratic State attorney general and the Democratic local
prosecutor. They all agreed this was the right thing to do----
Ms. Baldwin. Let me----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. No question that the decision by
the circuit was quite different, quite surprising. But the
notion that Mr. Biskupic would in any way--this was a career
prosecutor, again--charging decisions made in consultation with
Democratic officials, I just think is ludicrous.
Ms. Baldwin. A career prosecutor who was on the list, and
then was----
Mr. Gonzales. And he didn't know that. He has publicly said
he didn't know he was on the list.
Ms. Baldwin. General Gonzales, among my concerns are many
press reports and also documents produced by your Justice
Department that show that Wisconsin Republican operatives were
actively complaining and feeding documents to the White House
about the need for more voter fraud investigation of
prosecution in Milwaukee in late 2004 and 2005, right before
Mr. Biskupic was placed on this list.
Documents produced by your department indicate that Karl
Rove was looking at a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on
alleged voting irregularities on February 2, 2005, just 1 month
before Mr. Biskupic was placed on the list.
Do you know whether Mr. Rove or anyone else who was
concerned about voter fraud prosecution played a role in Mr.
Biskupic's being placed on the list?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, all the United States attorneys
that I recall are on this initial list----
Ms. Baldwin. Well, his name----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. And the White House has
indicated that they did not play a role in adding or deleting
people from the list.
And let me just say, the Georgia Thompson case is not a
voter fraud case.
Ms. Baldwin. I am running out of time, so I----
Mr. Gonzales. It is a public integrity case.
Ms. Baldwin. I want to read to you an excerpt from Mr.
Sampson's interview with Judiciary Committee staff. This is
regarding----
Mr. Gonzales. Can I see it? Can I see? If, in fact, you are
reading from his testimony, I would like to see it.
Ms. Baldwin. I would be happy to have a copy made. I can
read it and then--this is on page 57 of the documentation. This
is questioning concerning Mr. Biskupic's name on the list.
Mr. Sampson replies, ``I have a vague recollection--I am
not sure when in time it occurred--of a conversation with the
Deputy Attorney General about Biskupic. What I remember about
that conversation is the Deputy Attorney General suggesting
that Mr. Biskupic had been recommended by appointment by
Chairman Sensenbrenner, and that identifying him as somebody
who might be asked to resign would perhaps not be a wise thing
to do politically if it brought the ire of Chairman
Sensenbrenner. I do not remember when that was.''
Then the person asking Mr. Sampson questions said, ``Very
good. I take it you didn't have any conversations with Mr.
Sensenbrenner or any other officials outside of the Department
of Justice concerning Mr. Biskupic.'' Mr. Sampson: ``That is
right. I don't remember having any conversations like that.''
So my question for you----
Mr. Conyers. Time has run out. You want to finish your----
Ms. Baldwin. My question is, would you not view this to be
a political consideration relating to these personnel
decisions? Don't you find it disturbing that speculation about
the reaction of a Member of Congress played a role in his bring
on the list or taken off the list?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, you will have to talk to Mr.
Sampson about the list. Mr. Biskupic was not recommended to me
for change, and therefore there was no consideration by me as
to whether or not a change should occur.
And, you know, the views of a senator or a Member of
Congress about the performance of a United States attorney, I
don't think it is the wrong thing to take those into account.
You are often involved in making recommendations and providing
your views with respect to appointments of United States
attorneys.
And so I don't think there is anything surprising about
that.
Mr. Conyers. The Chair recognizes from Texas, Judge Louie
Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, General, for being here to testify.
Earlier, a colleague across the aisle, Ms. Lofgren, had
mentioned that there are over 300,000 names that need to be
checked and that are pending at the FBI. I am hoping we will
have time for a hearing on that and the appropriate people in
to testify, because I certainly agree with her, that is a major
problem.
But that is not the point of the hearing. We also had
another colleague that was grilling you, General, about the
national security letters and the alleged abuses, and I think
that needs to be the source of another hearing. But I believe
the director of the FBI, personally, I think, would be a more
appropriate witness than you are on that.
So what we are about here today, as I understood it, was
more about the U.S. attorneys firings, and before I get into
that, I just think there is something very important.
Earlier in the hearing, our colleague from California, Ms.
Sanchez, has used the word ``target'' about another colleague,
and then when that was brought up by my friend from California,
Mr. Lungren, she had indicated he was turning her words and
that she didn't use those words, and that was just in a matter
of minutes, and then later apologized if she had said something
inappropriate.
And I want to encourage my colleagues across the aisle,
please, I know the tendency has been with the general here when
he couldn't recall something that happened days, weeks, months
before or maybe he misrecalled something, the indications have
been to call him a liar basically, either inferring that or
just stating it.
And I want to encourage my colleagues not to treat Ms.
Sanchez like that. I think she make a honest mistake, even
though it was just a matter of minutes later that she couldn't
recall what she said. Please don't be so judgmental to our
colleague, Ms. Sanchez. I think it was an honest mistake, and
please don't judge her the way you have judged the Attorney
General.
Mr. Cannon. Is the gentleman suggesting a double standard,
if he would yield?
Mr. Gohmert. No, I am not suggesting a double standard. I
am asking that Ms. Sanchez not be judged like the general has
been on recall.
Now, with regard to The New York Times, that was brought up
by another colleague across the aisle in an article offered--
and I would mention that on March 24 of 1993, The New York
Times had an article and said, ``All 93 United States attorneys
knew they would be asked to step down, since all are Republican
holdovers. And 16 have resigned so far. But the process
generally takes much longer, and had usually been carried out
without the involvement of the Attorney General. Ms. Reno was
under pressure to assert her control over appointments at the
Justice Department. She was Clinton's third choice for Attorney
General, arrived after most of the department's senior
positions were already filled by the White House.'' And on
further, it says, ``It was unclear whether Ms. Reno initiated
the request for resignations, or whether it was pressed on her
by the White House. The Attorney General said it was a joint
decision.''
Now, there are other indications, other articles about some
of those investigations that may have been affected. But I
would ask you, General, if there was no intent there by the
Clinton administration to impede any investigation or affect an
investigation, and all 93 U.S. attorneys were fired within 12
days of Attorney General Reno taking office, simply for
political reasons, is that a crime?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Gohmert. No, it is not a crime?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Gohmert. So they can do that, strictly for political
reasons.
Mr. Gonzales. The U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of
the President of the United States.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, if it turned out that this was a joint
decision by the Attorney General and the White House in 1993,
and others within the Justice Department, to have all 93
resigned at the same time, is that a crime in and of itself?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Gohmert. Now, we have also heard across the aisle
reference to a U.S. attorney named McKay. And I would reference
a article from The Weekly Standard, March 14, 2007, which
indicated that U.S. Attorney John McKay from Washington state--
in 2004, the governor's race was decided in favor of Democrat
Christine Gregoire by 129 votes on the third recount.
As the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other media outlets
reported, some of the voters were deceased. Others were
registered in storage rental facilities. And still others were
convicted felons. More than 100 ballots were discovered in a
Seattle warehouse.
None of this constitutes proof that the election was
stolen. But it should have been enough to prompt Mr. McKay, a
Democrat, to investigate--something he declined to do,
apparently on grounds he had better things to do.
Now, if you or the President--particularly the President,
since you have said they serve at the pleasure of the
President--if somebody were fired because they would not
investigate what appeared to be problematic and potentially a
crime, is that a legitimate basis for a firing or resignation?
Mr. Gonzales. Of course, it could be, depending on the
circumstances. Obviously, if a crime has been committed,
potentially committed, I mean, there is an obligation upon the
Department of Justice to investigate and to prosecute. There
obviously is prosecutory discretion----
Mr. Conyers. We have a time problem, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. All right. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Conyers. And I thank you, sir.
The Chair recognizes a former assistant U.S. attorney
himself, Adam Schiff of California.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Gonzales, I wanted to go over some of your
testimony in the Senate. You testified in September of 2005,
Senator Domenici called you to complain that Mr. Iglesias was
in over his head and lacked the resources to prosecute
corruption cases. Is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't know if I said in connection with
that particular call that he lacked the resources. I think what
I testified to was the fact that he was concerned that Mr.
Iglesias did not have the top talent working on public
corruption cases generally.
And I think in subsequent conversations that occurred in
2006, I think there were concerns raised by Senator Domenici
about whether or not there were sufficient resources available
to handle other kinds of cases.
Mr. Schiff. Well, you testified in the Senate that he told
you in these conversations that he lacked the resources to
handle corruption cases. Are you saying that is not correct
today?
Mr. Gonzales. What I am saying is that I recall him saying
with respect to some of the conversations. I don't recall,
sitting here today, that he said that with respect to the first
case.
What I recall in the first conversation was Senator
Domenici questioned whether or not, does Mr. Iglesias have his
best people working on these kinds of very difficult cases?
Mr. Schiff. On corruption cases?
Mr. Gonzales. That is my recollection, yes.
Mr. Schiff. So in September 2005, he talked to you about
corruption cases. In January of 2006, you spoke with him again.
Again, he complained about Mr. Iglesias and his handling or
lack of resources with respect to corruption cases, correct?
Mr. Gonzales. My recollection, Congressman, is that the
subsequent--I have a recollection that in one of the
conversations, which I believe occurred in 2006, one of the two
conversations that I had, he mentioned generally voter fraud
cases. That is the extent of my recollection.
Mr. Schiff. In none of your Senate testimony do you
indicate that Senator Domenici talked to you about voter fraud,
only about corruption cases.
Mr. Gonzales. I don't remember being asked specifically
about the conversations that I had in 2006, Congressman.
Obviously, I mean----
Mr. Schiff. Well, your testimony was that you had three
conversations.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Schiff. And there were two points that Senator Domenici
made. First, that he was in over his head----
Mr. Gonzales. I didn't mean----
Mr. Schiff. Second, that he lacked resources to prosecute
corruption cases----
Mr. Gonzales. I didn't mean to imply that those were the
only points or things said in those conversations.
Mr. Schiff. So now you recall that he also talked about
voter fraud cases?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes. It is not a recollection that I have
just sitting here today. But, yes, I have a recollection that
the issue of voter fraud cases, generally--not specific cases,
but generally--was raised in one of those two conversations in
2006.
Mr. Schiff. And you also said in the Senate that, as a
result of your conversations with the senator, you lost
confidence in Mr. Iglesias. Is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. Obviously, I was not surprised to see Mr.
Iglesias's name recommended to me. The fact that the senior
senator----
Mr. Schiff. That is not my question. You testified in the
Senate you lost confidence in him as a result of this. Is that
correct?
Mr. Gonzales. Not having the confidence of the senior
senator and the senior leadership in the department was enough
for me to lose confidence in Mr. Iglesias to recommend----
Mr. Schiff. Okay. So you lost confidence in him after these
three calls?
In July of 2006, after these three conversations, you go
out to New Mexico, you meet with Mr. Iglesias. You said not a
word about losing confidence with him, did you?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't recall mentioning that, no, sir.
Mr. Schiff. In fact, you were there to announce you were
providing resources not for corruption cases and not for voter
fraud cases by for immigration cases, something you have never
said Senator Domenici raised with you?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't recall Senator Domenici raising with
me concerns about immigration cases.
Mr. Schiff. So nothing you did or said in July of 2006,
during your meeting with Mr. Iglesias, is consistent with what
you are saying now about your conversations with Senator
Domenici?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't recall raising these issues with Mr.
Iglesias in my visit in 2006.
Mr. Schiff. Now, you were the only one on the phone with
Senator Domenici during these three calls. Is that correct?
Mr. Gonzales. From my end. I don't know whether or not
anyone was on the phone as well from his end.
Mr. Schiff. So, on your end, you are the only one who would
know what the substance of those conversations was?
Mr. Gonzales. Again, I was the only one----
Mr. Schiff. In March of this year, when Mr. Roehrkasse,
your press spokesman, said that in none of these conversations,
none of these three conversations, were corruption cases
mentioned. That wasn't true, was it?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, I don't know whether or not Mr.
Roehrkasse was talking about specific corruption cases or as a
general category. Senator Domenici did not mention specific
corruption cases.
Mr. Schiff. And you don't think that is misleading, for him
to tell the country and for you to have a press conference the
week after and not correct the record, for him to tell the
country there was no mention of a corruption case in your
conversations?
Mr. Gonzales. There was no mention of a corruption case.
Mr. Schiff. Oh, there was mention about corruption cases
but not a corruption----
Mr. Gonzales. I do not think it was misleading,
Congressman.
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Gonzales, I worked in the department for 6
years. And I love that department. And it makes me ill to see
what has happened to it.
And for you to come here today and say there is nothing
improper about firing a good prosecutor to make room for
someone to pad their resume shows me how little respect you
have for the professionals in your charge.
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Schiff. And I hope you will reconsider your decision,
and I hope you will resign, because the department is broken,
and I don't think you are the one to fix it.
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentlemen yield? Who is the
prosecutor that the gentleman is referring to, Mr. Iglesias
or----
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman, time. Excuse me.
Mr. Cannon. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds for the
gentlemen to help clarify what he just said.
Mr. Conyers. All right.
Mr. Cannon. Were you referring to Mr. Cummins or Mr.
Iglesias, when you made those really rather harsh statements to
the Attorney General?
Mr. Schiff. Mr. Chairman, what I am referring to are the
three conversations the Attorney General had with Senator
Domenici, in which he purportedly complained that Mr. Iglesias
lacked the resources to prosecute corruption cases. He talked
about--and then have----
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield----
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman is not going to get any more
time, this gentleman. Finish your statement.
Mr. Schiff. And the Attorney General's spokesman told the
country, and the Attorney General failed to correct the record,
that in none of these conversations was a corruption case or
corruption cases mentioned. That, to me, is misleading to be
charitable.
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman's time has expired.
And the last Member on the minority side to be recognized,
as usual, is Jim Jordan from Ohio. [Laughter.]
Mr. Jordan. That is usual because I am the newest Member of
the Committee, right?
Mr. Conyers. Exactly.
Mr. Jordan. Okay.
Mr. Conyers. That is the only reason.
Mr. Jordan. Thank you. I appreciate that clarification.
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being with us this
afternoon--this morning and this afternoon. I am not going to
ask you about the U.S. attorney issue. I want to talk about two
other things I think are timely.
The first is, we have a constituent who has brought this to
our attention, and there is also a ``Dear Colleague'' letter
dated yesterday from Congressman Etheridge, Congressman King,
Senator Leahy, Senator Specter regarding the Hometown Hero
Survivor Benefit Act, a good piece of legislation I am sure you
are familiar with.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Jordan. And your department was a part of helping craft
that, working with the Congress and helping put that law
together 4 years ago.
The letter points out--and this is, I guess, my concern as
well--that there have only been two positive--and for those
Members of the Committee who aren't familiar with the act, it
is for EMTs, firefighters, police officers who suffer a heart
attack or stroke in the line of duty when it is stressful duty,
not something that is just routine, but actually out there
serving their communities, serving the public, rescuing people.
``There have been 230 applications received by the
department and only two positive determinations.'' I am reading
from the letter, the ``Dear Colleague'' letter.
Can you comment about why so few, when it actually passed
several years ago, and, again, strong bipartisan support? I
think the legislation was crafted narrowly, was well done, and
would like your comment.
Mr. Gonzales. But it created a whole new system of
eligibility under the Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program,
and rather complicated. And it took us a period of time to work
on regulations.
We received a lot of comments. We solicited a lot of
comments about this. We went back and looked at the entirety of
the program, quite frankly.
And so those all became final on September 11, 2006. And so
I think we are now in a position to move forward, and hopefully
we can get some decisions made, certainly on a quicker basis.
But that is the reason for the delay. It just took us
longer than we anticipated to get these regulations in place.
Mr. Jordan. Second issue is--and I am looking today at just
a different issue altogether, but just wanted to bring it up,
is in today's Washington Times. Want to know what your thoughts
are and feelings and what the department is doing on the issue
of sanctuary for illegal aliens.
Some cities have certain policies in place. Some churches
are adopting certain policies. There is a great article, as I
pointed out, in today's Washington Times about that issue.
Can you comment about that?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't know specifically in terms of what we
are doing specifically on this issue. Obviously, we have a job
to do, in terms of the enforcement of Federal laws. But in
terms of specifically what we may do with respect to
communities that offer up sanctuary, I would like to have the
opportunity to get back to you on that.
Mr. Jordan. I will yield the balance of my time to--I was
going to yield to Mr. Cannon, but I would yield to----
Mr. Cannon. Thank you. Actually, I----
Mr. Jordan [continuing]. Mr. Cannon.
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. Asked the gentlemen to yield.
And as long as Mr. Schiff is here, I just wanted to
clarify: Mr. Schiff, if you don't mind, you talked about firing
a U.S. attorney so that somebody else could pad his resume.
Were you talking about Mr. Iglesias or did you mean Mr. Cummins
as the U.S. attorney that was fired?
Mr. Schiff. At the very end of my remarks, when I said that
I thought that it was outrageous for the Attorney General to
come here today----
Mr. Cannon. But I actually want to be very specific.
Mr. Schiff. And I am asking--I am asking--yes.
Mr. Cannon. Were you talking about padding the resume of
Mr. Griffin, which is unrelated to Mr. Iglesias? It is my time,
and I would actually just like to clarify that for the record.
Mr. Schiff. Well, if you will let me answer, I will be
happy to clarify.
What I am referring to is the Attorney General's response
to Ms. Sanchez. When she asked, ``Don't you think it is
improper to fire someone to allow somebody else to pad their
resume, to fire a perfectly good prosecutor,'' and the Attorney
General's response was, ``There is nothing improper about
that.''
Mr. Cannon. Reclaiming my time, you have two complaints
about the Attorney General.
Mr. Schiff. And I think there is something incredibly
improper about that.
Mr. Cannon. Reclaiming my time, you have two complaints
against the Attorney General. One is what you accused him of,
being improper; and the other is the padding the resume, and
that goes back to Ms. Sanchez. And I was just trying to clarify
that.
I would like to point out for the record--in fact, it has
been an interesting hearing, Mr. Chairman. We started out
talking about bread crumbs, and, of course, with the $250,000
that your side is spending on attorneys, we would hope that
that would be more like caviar.
But in any event, at some point we have to get to the gist
of what the problem is here. And if the problem is whether or
not Mr. Iglesias was competent or should be fired, let me just
remind the panel that Mr. Margolis, who is not a political
hack--he is a career guy, well-respected--said, ``Given
everything I know today, he,'' referring to Mr. Iglesias,
``would have been number one on my list to go.'' He later said
that he was absolutely furious about the way Mr. Iglesias
handled these kind of things.
To challenge the Attorney General the way I think he has
been challenged here just seems to me to be highly
inappropriate. If you are concerned about the Department of
Justice, let's get this thing solved, let's get the questions
answered. We have had dozens of interviews----
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Cannon [continuing]. A dozen interviews and hearings.
Let's get beyond this, unless there is something really----
Mr. Conyers. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair now recognizes as far as we can go, we are down
to only three more witnesses--the gentleman from Alabama, Artur
Davis; himself a former assistant U.S. attorney.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Gonzales, you have said several times that the U.S.
senator, Senator Domenici, lost confidence in the U.S.
attorney.
Mr. Gonzales. That was my impression, yes.
Mr. Davis. Is it your practice to sample the opinion of
U.S. senators regarding their confidence in U.S. attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. No. What is really important----
Mr. Davis. No, my question is: Is it your practice to
sample----
Mr. Gonzales. Can I give you the answer?
Mr. Davis. Well, is it your practice to sample the opinion
of U.S. senators regarding performance?
Mr. Gonzales. What is important here is that there was a
consensus recommendation by the senior leadership in the
Department of Justice who knew the performance of U.S.
attorneys----
Mr. Davis. No, sir. I only have a limited amount of time,
General Gonzales----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. And made the recommendation to
me.
Mr. Davis. General, I have a limited amount of time. Is it
your practice, yes or no, to sample the opinion of all 100 U.S.
senators regarding the performance of United States attorneys?
Mr. Gonzales. Of course not, but, in this particular case,
what is important----
Mr. Davis. Are there any Democratic senators--we only have
a limited time, General.
Mr. Gonzales. The senior leadership in the department gave
me their base recommendations----
Mr. Davis. I am not asking about Mr. Iglesias, General
Gonzales. I am asking in general.
Mr. Gonzales. I am responding----
Mr. Davis. Are there any Democratic senators who have
expressed concern about U.S. attorneys, and have there been
terminations based on the concern of Democratic senators, yes
or no?
Mr. Gonzales. Not that I can recall.
Mr. Davis. Is there significant justification, Mr.
Gonzales, for a significant disparity in the number of
Democrats prosecuted versus the number of Republicans
prosecuted, with respect to local elected officials? Was there
any reason for that disparity?
Mr. Gonzales. I wouldn't know if such a disparity existed.
It is not something that we look at.
Mr. Davis. Would it concern you?
Mr. Gonzales. It is not something we keep track of.
Mr. Davis. Would it concern you if there were a disparity
between the number of elected Democratic officials prosecuted
and the number of elected Republican officials prosecuted?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again----
Mr. Davis. Would it concern you if it existed, yes or no?
Mr. Gonzales. It depends on the reasons for it.
Mr. Davis. Well, I will ask to put it in the record, Mr.
Chairman, a survey done by the University of Minnesota, which
surveys prosecutions of local elected officials between 2001
and 2006 and surveys with respect to the partisan affiliation.
Eighty-five percent of the local officials prosecuted were
Democrats. Twelve percent were Republicans----
Mr. Cannon. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Davis. No, I will not yield.
Mr. Cannon. Well, are you----
Mr. Davis. General Gonzales, do you dispute that
characterization?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't know the basis of this report. We
don't keep that kind of numbers. And quite frankly, for us to
do, that would be more alarming.
Mr. Davis. Well, General Gonzales, let me ask you the
question: Would it concern you if you did your own research and
you discovered that there was a significant disparity?
Mr. Gonzales. We are not going to do that kind of
research----
Mr. Davis. Would it concern you if it were reported----
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. Because I think it would be
dangerous to do that kind of research.
Mr. Davis. Would it concern you?
Mr. Gonzales. Listen, it would concern me if we are not
making cases based on the evidence.
Mr. Davis. General Gonzales, I would represent to you
that--and you can certainly check the data yourself--50 percent
of the local elected officials in this country are Democrats,
41 percent are Republicans. Again, I ask you the question: Do
you have any reason to assert that seven times more Democrats
are guilty of Federal crimes than Republicans?
Mr. Gonzales. I have no way or knowing the legitimacy of
this report you are citing to. I don't know the basis of these
numbers.
Mr. Davis. Let me, if I can, go back to the Wisconsin case
to possibly test this theory. These were the facts in the
Wisconsin case: A woman who was a career appointee, who had
appointed by a Republican governor, was working for the State
tourism department.
She was indicted because a contract was awarded to a
political contributor to the Democratic governor. There was no
testimony at trial that she knew of the contribution. There was
no testimony at trial that she was asked to award the contract
to this particular company. And there was testimony at trial
that the company was the lowest bidder.
Are you aware that in that particular case involving
Georgia Thompson the 7th Circuit vacated the conviction from
the bench?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I am aware of that.
Mr. Davis. Do you know of any other case while you have
been Attorney General where an appeals court vacated a
conviction from the bench?
Mr. Gonzales. Highly unusual.
Mr. Davis. Does that concern you, sir?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again----
Mr. Davis. Let me turn to--my time----
Mr. Gonzales. The fact that we have a career prosecutor
making decisions----
Mr. Davis [continuing]. Let me turn to the Alabama case.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. With Democratic officeholders--
--
Mr. Davis. General, we can't both talk at the same time. I
have the time, sir.
The Alabama case, the former governor of Alabama, who was a
Democrat, was indicted----
Mr. Gonzales. Can I be allowed to answer questions?
Mr. Conyers. Yes. The Attorney General has the privilege to
respond to the question.
Mr. Davis. Let me pose the Alabama context, and you can
respond to both.
Mr. Conyers. Well, wait a minute, Mr. Davis. Let's let him
respond to the other question that you asked.
Briefly, sir.
Mr. Gonzales. The government prevailed at the lower court.
We prevailed at the lower court.
Mr. Davis. I take that answer.
With respect to the governor of Alabama, the initial case
against the former Democratic governor of Alabama dismissed by
the 1st District judge before the case went to trial on grounds
of insufficient facts.
If I can finish the question, Mr. Chairman.
The second time, General Gonzales----
Mr. Conyers. You have----
Mr. Davis. Permission to finish the question, sir?
Mr. Conyers. Please, very briefly.
Mr. Davis. Thirty-four count indictment, 32 counts
dismissed, evidence of jury misconduct based on e-mails that
were obtained. The U.S. attorney's office who prosecuted the
case declined to investigate the jury misconduct and, indeed,
sought to exclude the e-mails from even being heard in an
evidentiary hearing.
This is the question: Would you expect a U.S. attorney's
office that had evidence of jury misconduct to investigate the
misconduct or to try to exclude it from being heard in an
evidentiary hearing? Which is the better practice, Mr.
Gonzales?
Mr. Gonzales. As a general matter, the former. But I am not
going to comment on this particular case without looking at the
facts.
Mr. Conyers. The Chair wishes to recognize Dan Lungren for
a request.
Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to
include in the record three articles: two of them from the
Albuquerque Journal, one from the Albuquerque Lawyer. The first
one, April 15, 2007, entitled, ``Iglesias Had Buried Critics
During Career''; the second one, ``Domenici Sought Iglesias
Ouster,'' that is Sunday, April 15, 2007; and the third, from
the Albuquerque Lawyer, March 15, 2007, ``Iglesias Earns His
Firing.''
Mr. Conyers. Without objection, so ordered.
[The articles follow:]
Articles published in various sources, submitted by the Honorable
Daniel E. Lungren, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary
Mr. Lungren. Thank you.
Mr. Conyers. May I commend the Attorney General on his
endurance and patience during this very grueling day.
We have votes. I have two distinguished Members of this
Committee that I cannot short-circuit. So I ask you to bear
with us again.
But thank you, and the Committee stands in recess. We will
resume immediately after the vote.
[Recess.]
Mr. Conyers. We begin by, again, thanking the Attorney
General for his continuing steadfastness with us. We know this
has been more grueling on you than anybody else. It has been a
long day for us all, and we admire your cooperation, sir.
The Chair recognizes Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
General Gonzales, I can speak, I think, both for Mr.
Ellison and myself. Thank you for your staying to the end for
the end-of-the-benchers over here. We almost always are given
an opportunity to ask questions, and we appreciate the full
opportunity to do that.
Given that I am from a State that decided the closest
presidential election in American history, you might imagine
that I would have some concern and interest over voter fraud
and voter suppression.
This is Merriam-Webster's dictionary, and I want read for
you the definition in this dictionary of ``fraud'':
``intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to
part with something of value or to surrender a legal right.''
Now, Mr. Lungren from California earlier today talked about
the priorities of the Administration and the direction that was
perhaps given to U.S. attorneys to pursue voter fraud as a
priority of the Administration.
And I am going to assume for the record that that was a
priority of the Administration and it was communicated to U.S.
attorneys, as you have indicated in your testimony today.
Mr. Gonzales. The way I would characterize, it was
important. I mean, it was important to the Administration.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Okay, priorities are important, so I
am assuming that in my line of questioning. So that having been
said, generally I would expect that the pursuit of voter fraud
would be along the lines of organized efforts to corrupt the
election process.
And given the dictionary definition that I just read for
you, I want you to tell me whether you think that pursuing a
jewelry store owner who got into trouble after a clerk at the
motor vehicles' office had given him a registration form to
complete that he quickly filled out in line and was unaware
that it was reserved just for United States citizens, a 68-
year-old man named Mr. Ali, whether you think--and that is from
The New York Times article of April 16--whether you think that
that meets the definition of ``fraud'' as Merriam-Webster
defines it, and also in terms of widespread voter corruption.
Before you answer, I want to give you two other examples.
In Alaska, Rogelio Mejorada-Lopez managed a gasoline station.
He received a voter registration form the mail. Before he had
applied for citizenship, he thought it was permissible to vote.
He now might be deported to Mexico after 16 years in the United
States. Does that meet the dictionary definition, or a
definition of widespread voter fraud?
There is also an example of someone who was actually
deported because they made an innocent mistake in filling out a
voter registration application. Is that an example of the
priorities or the importance that was given in terms of the
instructions that you relayed to the United States attorneys in
terms of pursuing voter fraud?
Mr. Gonzales. At one point, you described it as an innocent
mistake. If, in fact, we are talking about innocent mistakes,
mistakes happen. If you are talking about intentionally
stealing votes, intentionally canceling out----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. No, I am not. I am talking about the
examples that I just gave you.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I mean, those examples would not be ones
that I would view as--and I don't think U.S. attorneys, quite
frankly, would look at those cases as priorities.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Those are all cases that were
prosecuted by U.S. attorneys. All of them.
Mr. Gonzales. There are more egregious examples. And,
again----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Not that the department pursued.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. You are taking--well, I don't
know all the facts here. And so, out of fairness to the
decisions, if, in fact, there were decisions made by U.S.
attorneys to prosecute these kinds of cases, I don't know
whether or not there are additional facts that may have made a
difference in moving forward with these kinds of prosecutions.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. General Gonzales, I have had a
really hard time today figuring out what it is you do know. I
have sat through this entire hearing, and most of your answers
have been you don't know.
Now, you know what? I am 40 years old, and I am reaching a
point where I have spottiness in my memory too. But something
as significant as the lapses in memory that you seem to have
had related to the firing of U.S. attorneys and something as
significant as not knowing whether or not there has been
widespread pursuit by your U.S. attorneys to investigate and
pursue corruption and voter fraud, as opposed to individual
cases--these are individual cases cited in a New York Times
article, the headline of which is ``In Five-Year Effort, Scant
Evidence of Voter Fraud.''
Here is serious----
Mr. Gonzales. Are you basing your questions based on a
newspaper article?
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. I am basing my questions based on
U.S. attorneys quoted in this newspaper article. In Miami, an
assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved
what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud. The
headline says ``In Five-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter
Fraud.''
So if this was a priority, how was it communicated to the
U.S. attorneys and why were they not pursuing it in terms of
widespread corruption, as opposed to pursuing individual cases
that apparently were mistakes?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. As opposed to----
Mr. Conyers. Ten seconds remaining.
Mr. Gonzales. Well, of course, I mean, again these are
decisions made by the United States attorneys in terms of what
is appropriate. And, you know, I guess it may be easy to sit
here and criticize the prosecutorial decisions made by the
United States attorneys----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. But that is why they were fired.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. We have an obligation----
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. That is why a number of them were
fired--you did criticize them.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. To enforce the law, including
voter fraud.
Mr. Conyers. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous
consent for 30 more seconds? I mean, we sat here the whole day,
Mr. Chairman, and a number of other Members had that
opportunity.
Mr. Conyers. I am totally persuaded. [Laughter.]
Ms. Wasserman Schultz. Thank you very much. I appreciate
it.
General Gonzales, I just want to point out what you said on
April 19th in response to a question by Senator Cardin, which
was your opinion as you expressed it about voter fraud and it
being a priority. You made a reference to your growing up in a
poor neighborhood and that the 1 day you were equal to everyone
else was on Election Day, and so you really appreciated how
important the right to vote is.
``Voter fraud, to me,'' quoting you, ``means you are
stealing somebody's vote. And so I take this very, very
seriously. Having said that, in enforcing or prosecuting voter
fraud, we need to be careful that we don't discourage people or
intimidate people from participating on Election Day.''
You clearly have not struck the right balance. And your
statements in Committee and your answers to questions here and
the evidence that is clear from the U.S. attorneys under your
control, pursuing innocent mistakes as opposed to widespread
corruption are evident.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers. Do you care to respond?
Mr. Gonzales. No.
Mr. Conyers. Our final speaker is an eminent Member of this
Committee, done great work, from Minnesota, Mr. Keith Ellison.
Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you for your endurance, Attorney General
Gonzales.
I think it is fair to say that the eight people who were
dismissed were--you stand by those dismissals because, in your
view, there were questions about performance. Is that a fair
statement?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, you know, I think that the problem
about saying ``performance'' is that it means so many different
things to different people.
Mr. Ellison. Right. But in terms of your office's calculus,
that is what you were thinking when the dismissal decision was
made?
Mr. Gonzales. That was the whole purpose of this process.
Mr. Ellison. Right. And so you are concerned about
performance of U.S. attorneys, right?
Mr. Gonzales. I think we all should be.
Mr. Ellison. Right, and that includes you?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes.
Mr. Ellison. And do you know Rachel Palouse?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I do.
Mr. Ellison. She worked for you directly, right?
Mr. Gonzales. She worked, yes, in the department, yes, in
main Justice.
Mr. Ellison. Right. And recently, well, I think, four
senior members of her staff resigned because of her performance
issues. Is she still on staff? Is she still a U.S. attorney
after those--is she still on staff?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, she is. And I am certainly aware of the
problems in that office.
Mr. Ellison. This is my question. So the people who took--
they took voluntary demotions, right?
Mr. Gonzales. As I understand it, that is correct.
Mr. Ellison. And also, with those voluntary demotions, they
took pay cuts, right?
Mr. Gonzales. That I am not aware of.
Mr. Ellison. And so, it was because of their objections to
her performance, right?
Mr. Gonzales. As far as I understand, that is correct.
Mr. Ellison. And this was a U.S. attorney who you know
personally, right?
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, I do.
Mr. Ellison. In fact, you sent Mr. John Kelly down there to
investigate the situation, right?
Mr. Gonzales. Absolutely. We became aware of the problems
in that office, and we sent a career prosecutor to make an
evaluation and report back to us.
Mr. Ellison. So that is a yes. That is a yes. And when did
you do that? When did Mr. Kelly go down and talk to members of
the staff?
Mr. Gonzales. I would say within the past 2 months. I think
either shortly before or after these individuals left their
management position in the office we sent someone down there,
Mr. Kelly, to give us an evaluation of what was going on,
because we were obviously very concerned about----
Mr. Ellison. And Mr. Kelly talked with numerous people in
the office, right?
Mr. Gonzales. That is what I understand.
Mr. Ellison. And he took notes of what people said to him,
right?
Mr. Gonzales. I don't know if he took notes, but he
reported back what he learned.
Mr. Ellison. So just to be clear, he took notes. Isn't that
true?
Mr. Gonzales. Congressman, I don't know----
Mr. Ellison. Is there a document that would summarize what
he learned on his visit to Minnesota?
Mr. Gonzales. I am not aware that such a document exists.
Such a document----
Mr. Ellison. If such a document exists, would you provide
it?
Mr. Gonzales. I am happy to take that request back,
Congressman.
Mr. Ellison. Okay.
Now, I sent you a letter earlier this week, isn't that
right? Are you aware that I sent you a letter?
Mr. Gonzales. I am not aware of the letter, but I get lots
of letters and I am sure at the appropriate----
Mr. Ellison. Okay.
Mr. Gonzales. I mean, I am sure I will make myself aware
of----
Mr. Ellison. If I sent a letter to your office and if I got
a response back that it had been received, I can expect a full
answer to the letter. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Gonzales. We try to be as forthcoming as we can, in
responding back to the Congress.
Mr. Ellison. Now, Ms. Paulose, she was appointed after a
gentleman named Mr. Thomas Heffelfinger. Is that right?
Mr. Gonzales. He was the U.S. attorney before Ms. Paulose?
Mr. Ellison. And he had a good reputation, isn't that
right?
Mr. Gonzales. As far as I know, that is correct.
Mr. Ellison. And yet he appeared on a list to be fired that
was in your office, that was pulled together by Mr. Sampson.
Isn't that right?
Mr. Gonzales. My understanding is that his name appeared
with all the other 93 United States attorneys, but the views of
Mr. Sampson were reflected----
Mr. Ellison. So that is one you don't--you don't know that
one.
Mr. Gonzales. Well, my recollection is that he was
identified as someone that perhaps there may be issues with.
Mr. Ellison. Right. And yet, these issues didn't come from
Minnesota, did they? These were not Minnesota concerns, to your
knowledge.
Mr. Gonzales. Well, again, I don't know the source, why Mr.
Sampson had that particular view----
Mr. Ellison. So you don't know that one----
Mr. Gonzales. That is correct.
Mr. Ellison. Okay. So here we have Mr. Heffelfinger, career
prosecutor, and had prosecuted many cases, 58 years old, done
the job for years. Ms. Paulose was, what, 34 when she was
appointed. Is that right?
Mr. Gonzales. Relatively young. I am not sure her exact
age.
Mr. Ellison. Did she go through a Senate confirmation
process?
Mr. Conyers. Thirty seconds remaining.
Mr. Gonzales. Yes, she did. She was deemed----
Mr. Ellison. There was a vote?
Mr. Gonzales. She was deemed--I don't know if it was a
vote, but she was confirmed by the United States Senate as
qualified to be the United States attorney in that district.
Mr. Ellison. And did the Senate have a vote?
Mr. Gonzales. You mean----
Mr. Ellison. A Committee vote, voting for her, or was it
another kind of process?
Mr. Gonzales. What I know is that she was confirmed by the
United States Senate.
Mr. Ellison. Is she going to remain in her position, given
the performance problems that have come to your personal
attention?
Mr. Gonzales. Well, if things do not change, obviously that
would be something we would----
Mr. Conyers. Time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Gonzales [continuing]. We would have to consider. But
we have expressed to Mr. Paulose our concerns. And so we are
going to work with her----
Mr. Ellison. Unanimous consent for one last question?
Mr. Conyers. Go ahead.
Mr. Ellison. Did any of the eight individuals who we know
were fired for allegedly performance issues have people
quitting and going back to line position in response to the
difficulties that came about as a result of their leadership?
Mr. Gonzales. Not that I recall. Of course, the difference
is, all eight of these individuals served their full 4-year
term.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much, sir. It has been a long
day. We thought that our day here was longer than your visit in
the Senate Judiciary a little while ago, but we appreciate your
cooperation and your endurance.
Without objection, Members will have 5 legislative days to
submit any additional written questions for you, which we will
forward and ask you to return so that they may be made part of
the record.
Without objection, the record will be open for 5
legislative days for the submission of these and any other
material.
Mr. Attorney General, the matters we have been discussing
today are of utmost importance, and I am concerned that we are
still not getting the cooperation we need to get to the bottom
of them. I am, frankly, disappointed that you are unable to
answer the first and most basic question of who put these U.S.
attorneys on the firing list and why?
Numerous times today, you have made the statements ``I
don't know'' or you would have to go back and check, or you
don't remember. It is clear to me that we, on this Committee,
have a serious duty to press forward with our investigation and
for meaningful information from the White House. The bread
crumbs that we referred to earlier seem to be leading to 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue.
In the meantime, added to our other requests, we ask that
you provide us with all documents, continue to provide us, and
in unredacted form, relating in any way to the termination of
the ninth terminated U.S. attorney, Mr. Todd Graves. Would you
be able to do that?
Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Chairman, I will obviously take your
request back. I am not in a position to guarantee that that can
be done, but I understand your request.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a
Representative in Congress from the State of Texas
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important hearing. In
addition to holding the seat of my hero, role model, and predecessor,
the incomparable Barbara Jordan, one of the reasons that I have been so
proud to be a member of the Committee on the Judiciary throughout my
seven terms in Congress is that this Committee has oversight
jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, which I have always
regarded as the crown jewel of the Executive Branch.
In recent years the reputation of that Department, which has done
so much to advance the cause of justice and equality for all Americans
through the years under the leadership of such great Attorney Generals
as Robert Jackson, Robert F. Kennedy, Nicholas Katzenbach, Herbert
Brownell, Harlan Fiske Stone, Francis Biddle, Tom C. Clark and his son
Ramsey, and Elliot Richardson, has been tarnished. And that is putting
it charitably. This Committee has no greater challenge and obligation
to the nation than to help restore the Department of Justice to its
former greatness. But before we can begin to set it right we have to
get to the bottom as to how it went wrong.
It is in that spirit that I welcome our witness, the Attorney
General of the United States and a fellow Texan, the Honorable Alberto
Gonzalez. Welcome Mr. Attorney General.
Anyone who has observed this Committee over the years knows that I
have a deep and abiding passion about the subjects within this
Committee's jurisdiction: separation of powers, due process, equal
justice, habeas corpus, juvenile justice, civil liberties, antitrust,
and intellectual property. But Mr. Chairman, today I wish to focus on
the record and performance of the Department of Justice in three areas:
(1) the unceremonious firing of the 8 United States Attorneys, what
some have referred to as the ``December 7 Massacre''; (2) the
Department's dismal record in the area criminal civil rights law
enforcement; and (3) its performance in the area of justice and
protection of juvenile offenders and others held in custody in the
municipal jails of Texas and the rest of the country. Allow me to
describe my substantial concerns and the responses I hope to hear from
the Attorney General.
CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Justice is the nation's largest law
enforcement agency and it is no exaggeration to state that its Civil
Rights Division used to be the nation's largest civil rights legal
organization. It wields the authority and the resources of the federal
government on difficult and complex issues and has helped bring about
some of the greatest global advances for civil rights. However, the
Department's record under this Administration indicates that it is not
living up to its tradition of fighting for equal justice under law and
championing the rights of the powerless and vulnerable. The Civil
Rights Division has simply neglected to bring challenging cases that
could yield significant rulings and advance the cause of civil rights
in our country.
The Bush administration has abdicated its responsibility to enforce
the nation's most critical laws. For example, since January 20, 2001,
the Bush Administration has filed 32 only Title VII cases, an average
of approximately 5 cases per year. In contrast, the prior
Administration filed 34 cases in its first two years in office alone,
and 92 in all, for an average of more 11 cases per year.
Moreover, a close look at the types of cases reveals an even more
disturbing fact, which is a failure to bring suits that allege
discrimination against African-Americans. Of the 32 Title VII cases
brought by the Bush Administration, 9 are pattern or practice cases, 5
of which raise allegations of race discrimination but only one case--1
case--involved discrimination against African Americans. In contrast,
the Clinton Administration filed 13 pattern or practice cases, 8 of
which involved racial discrimination.
The record is not much better when it comes to the subject of
voting rights enforcement. After six years, the Bush Administration has
brought fewer Section 2 cases, and brought them at a significantly
lower rate, than any other administration since 1982.
The Voting Section filed a total of 33 involving vote dilution and/
or other types of Section 2 claims during the 77 months of the Reagan
Administration that followed the 1982 amendment of Section 2. Eight (8)
were filed during the 48 months of the Bush I Administration and 34
were filed during the 96 months of the Clinton Administration. Only 10
have been filed so far during the first six years of the Bush II
Administration.
But the record is really bad when it comes to enforcement of the
federal criminal civil rights law. According to an analysis of Justice
Department data by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, civil rights
enforcement no longer appears to be a top departmental priority. An
analysis of the data reveals that between 2001 and 2005, the number of
federal investigations targeting abusive police officers declined by 66
percent and investigations of cross-burners and other purveyors of hate
declined by 60 percent.
It appears that this downward trend accelerated after the 9/11
attacks. There has been a slight increase in enforcement related to
human trafficking, which is counted under civil rights, but not enough
to stop the overall slide.
I am very troubled by this trend. Hate-crimes are too dangerous to
ignore, and there is social value in effective federal review of police
misconduct. I am anxious to hear the Attorney General's responses to
these serious problems.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, most of the Department's major voting-
related actions of the past five years have been beneficial to the
Republican Party, including two in Georgia, one in Mississippi and the
infamous redistricting plan in Texas, which the Supreme Court struck
down in part. For years we have heard stories of current and former
lawyers in the Civil Rights Division alleging that political appointees
continually overruled their decisions and exerted undue political
influence over voting rights cases. Indeed, one-third of the Civil
Rights Division lawyers have left the department and the remaining
lawyers have been barred from making recommendations in major voting
rights cases.
As I indicated earlier, it appears the Justice Department has
abandoned its mission in cases involving abusive police practices. The
Department's Special Litigation Section is charged with handling cases
under Police Pattern or Practice Litigation. These ``police abuse''
prosecution cases numbered about 20 nationwide as of 2006, according to
a leading scholar on the subject, Professor Sam Walker at the
University of Nebraska at Omaha. Very few, if any, consent decrees have
been entered into under the Bush Administration. While the Bush
Administration has entered into several memorandum-of-agreement
settlements, there has been no effort to address the on-going problems
of the most problematic agencies. Progress has ground to a halt and the
special litigation section hasn't initiated any new cases in years. As
recent cases in New York, Atlanta and Los Angeles make all too clear,
police abuse is still alive and well in America.
U.S. ATTORNEY FIRINGS
Mr. Chairman, excluding changes in Administration, it is rare for a
United States Attorney to not complete his or her four-year term of
appointment. According to the Congressional Research Service, only 54
United States Attorneys between 1981 and 2006 did not complete their
four-year terms. Of these, 30 obtained other public sector positions or
sought elective office, 15 entered or returned to private practice, and
one died. Of the remaining eight United States Attorneys, two were
apparently dismissed by the President, and three apparently resigned
after news reports indicated they had engaged in questionable personal
actions.
Mr. Chairman, in the past few months disturbing stories appeared in
the news media reporting that several United States Attorneys had been
asked to resign by the Justice Department. It has now been confirmed
that at least seven United States Attorneys were asked to resign on
December 7, 2006. An eighth United States Attorney was subsequently
asked to resign. They include the following:
H.E. Cummins, III, U.S. Attorney (E.D. Ark.);
John McKay, U.S. Attorney (W.D. Wash.);
David Iglesias, U.S. Attorney (D. N.M.);
Paul K. Charlton, U.S. Attorney (D. Ariz.);
Carol Lam, U.S. Attorney (S.D. Calif.);
Daniel Bogden, U.S. Attorney (D. Nev.);
Kevin Ryan, (N.D. Calif.); and
Margaret Chiara, (W.D. Mich.).
On March 6, 2007, the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative
Law held a hearing entitled, ``H.R. 580, Restoring Checks and Balances
in the Confirmation Process of United States Attorneys.'' Witnesses at
the hearing included six of the eight former United States Attorneys
and William Moschella, Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General,
among other witnesses.
Six of the six former United States Attorneys testified at the
hearing and each testified that he or she was not told in advance why
he or she was being asked to resign. Upon further inquiry, however,
Messrs. Charlton and Bogden were advised by the then Acting Assistant
Attorney General William Mercer that they were terminated essentially
to make way for other Republicans to enhance their credential and pad
their resumes. In addition, Messrs. Iglesias and McKay testified about
inappropriate inquiries they received from Members of Congress
concerning pending investigation, which they surmised may have led to
their forced resignations.
It is now clear that the manifest intention of the proponents of
the provision in the USA PATRIOT Act Reauthorization regarding the
appointment of interim U.S. Attorneys was to allow interim appointees
to serve indefinitely and to circumvent Senate confirmation. We know
now, for example, that in a September 13, 2006 e-mail to former White
House Counsel, Harriet Miers, Attorney General Chief of Staff, Kyle
Sampson wrote:
``I strongly recommend that, as a matter of Administration
policy, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize
the Attorney General to make U.S. Attorney appointments.''
Mr. Sampson further said that by using the new provision, DOJ could
``give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1)
our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more
efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''
Regarding the interim appointment of Tim Griffin at the request of
Karl Rove and Harriet Miers, Mr. Sampson wrote to Monica Goodling,
Senior Counsel to the White House and Liaison to the White House on
December 19, 2006 the following:
``I think we should gum this to death: ask the Senators to give
Tim a chance, meet with him, give him some time in office to
see how he performs, etc. If they ultimately say, `no never'
(and the longer we can forestall that, the better), then we can
tell them we'll look for other candidates, and otherwise run
out the clock. All of this should be done in `good faith,' of
course.''
We now know that after gaining this increased authority to appoint
interim U.S. Attorneys indefinitely, the Administration has exploited
the provision to fire U.S. Attorneys for political reasons. A mass
purge of this sort is unprecedented in recent history. The Department
of Justice and the White House coordinated this purge. According to an
Administration ``hit list'' released on Tuesday, U.S. Attorneys were
targets for the purge based on their rankings. The ranking relied in
large part on whether the U.S. Attorney ``exhibit[ed] loyalty to the
President and Attorney General.''
Mr. Chairman, until exposed by this unfortunate episode, United
States Attorneys were expected to, and in fact did exercise, wide
discretion in the use of resources to further the priorities of their
districts. Largely a result of its origins as a distinct prosecutorial
branch of the federal government, the office of the United States
Attorney traditionally operated with an unusual level of independence
from the Justice Department in a broad range of daily activities. That
practice served the nation well for more than 200 years. The practice
that was in place for less than two years served the nation poorly. It
needed to end. That is why I was proud to have voted for its repeal and
the restoration of the status quo ante.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the Attorney General has a heavy burden in
defending what appears to be indefensible conduct. But I am willing to
listen and keep an open mind.
TEXAS JUVENILE AND OTHER CORRECTIONS FACILITIES
Mr. Chairman, the third and final area I wish to discuss concern
the care and protection of juvenile offenders in state correctional
facilities and the care and safety of those being held in custody in
county and municipal jails in Texas and around the country.
In my home state of Texas, certain administrators and officials,
past and maybe current, of the Texas Youth Commission (TYC) have
obviously neglected their duties. According to published reports and
investigations, several TYC administrators abused their authority by
pulling young boys out of their dorm rooms and classrooms and sexually
molesting them. The allegations of abuse have been a matter of public
record since 2000. In 2005, an investigation conducted by the Texas
Rangers revealed that employees of the juvenile facility in Pyote,
Texas, had repeated sexual contact with juvenile inmates.
Additionally, several members of the TYC board, who are responsible
for the oversight of TYC facilities, admit that they were aware of the
finding in the report prepared by Texas Rangers but took no corrective
action. The current scandal surrounding TYC is scandalous and
outrageous; quite frankly it sickens me. The situation within the TYC
disregards every notion of justice and will contribute to the rise of
recidivism rates if it is not arrested immediately.
Let me turn to another horrifying area of inmate abuse. Between
January 2001 and January 2006, at least 101 persons, an average of
about 17 a year, have died while in the custody of the Harris County
Jail, located in Houston, Texas. In 2006 alone there were 22 deaths. I
find it especially disturbing that of the 101 deaths, at least 72 of
the inmates were awaiting court hearings and had yet to be convicted of
the crimes for which they were taken into custody.
In our system every accused person is entitled to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness, and a presumption of innocence. These 72
individuals, however, were deprived of their life without the due
process guaranteed by the Constitution. They will not ever receive
their day in court to be judged by their peers because of the
irresponsibility, incompetence, indifference, and perhaps the criminal
neglect, of the jail officials to whose care they were entrusted.
I believe the situation in the Harris County Jail System requires
national attention. When it is alleged that inmates are sleeping on the
floor next to toilets and denied basic medical care, something must be
done. The conditions at these jails border on cruel and unusual
punishment. Should fault or wrongdoing be found, the persons
responsible should be held accountable. Seeing that such authorities
are held accountable is ultimately the responsibility of the United
States Department of Justice. I am interested to hear the Attorney
General's views on these matters.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing. I yield the
remainder of my time.
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Elton Gallegly, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you for yielding me the time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gonzales, thank you for coming up here today to testify before
this committee. You will face a number of questions, some may be fair
and go to the purpose of the hearing, which is oversight of the
Department of Justice. Other questions may be less than fair and focus
on politics, instead of the operation of the Justice Department.
I appreciate your efforts to keep our country save from another
terrorist attack. As the recent arrests in New Jersey demonstrate,
national security must be our first priority. An important lesson from
the recent arrests this week is that improved immigration enforcement
is a key element of an effective counter-terrorism policy.
I do want to commend you for increased enforcement of our
immigration laws, but as you know, we have a long way to go. Too many
illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and human traffickers are still able
to illegally cross our borders and flout our immigration laws.
I look forward to hearing your testimony and I will have questions
at the appropriate time. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Gonzales, the Washington Post reported this morning that at
least two members of the alleged terrorist cell in New Jersey were
illegal aliens and had been stopped by police repeatedly for traffic
violations. This is eerily similar to the case of Mohammed Atta, who
was here illegally, was pulled over by the Florida state patrol for a
traffic violation--a mere month before flying a plane into the World
Trade Center. What steps is the Department of Justice taking to ensure
that illegal aliens who are stopped for traffic violations or other
crimes are identified and deported?
Mr. Gonzales, in the last 18 months of your term, what steps are
you planning to take to improve the process of prosecuting those who
violate our immigration laws, particularly drug smugglers and human
traffickers.
Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary and Committee Members Robert C. Scott,
Sheila Jackson Lee, Tammy Baldwin, Luis V. Guiterrez, and Brad Sherman
Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative
in Congress From the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on
the Judiciary
Responses to Post-Hearing Questions from the Honorable Alberto
Gonzales, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice \1\
------------
\1\ The responses to post-hearing questions from the Honorable Alberto
Gonzales include a series of attachments. Due to their large volume,
the attachments are not printed as a part of this hearing record, but
copies have been retained in the official Committee hearing record.