Improving America's Security Act of 2007--Continued
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2007--Continued -- (Senate - March 13, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise because I heard Attorney General Gonzales speak about the growing, disheartening, and alarming scandal with the U.S. attorneys. I wish to say, first, that this is a serious issue. In every district in America, the U.S. attorney represents the enforcer of the Federal law without fear or favor. U.S. attorneys over decades have built up a reputation of being not part of politics but, rather, enforcing the law, as they say, without fear or favor.
Over every Justice Department office in every corner of the land is the eagle perched on a branch, with her claw holding a bunch of arrows. When you see that symbol, it denotes strength, but it denotes fairness and impartiality. That fairness, that impartiality has received a serious blow--maybe not a mortal blow because of the resilience of our country, but a serious blow--over what has happened in the Justice Department over the last several months.
What we have had in the past is misstatement after misstatement about what has happened. The story has kept changing, we can't get the truth, and that is why we had no choice but to undertake our own investigation.
Let me say that time and time again we have heard falsehoods. We were told that all seven of the eight U.S. attorneys were fired for performance reasons. It now turns out this was false, as their glowing performance evaluations attest.
We were told by the Attorney General he would ``never, ever make a change for political reasons.' It now turns out all this was false, as the evidence makes clear this approach was based purely on politics to punish prosecutors who were perceived to be too light on Democrats or too tough on Republicans.
We were told by the Attorney General this was ``an overblown personnel matter.' It now turns out, however, that far from being a low-level personnel matter, this was a longstanding plan to exact political vendettas or make political payoffs.
We were told the White House was not involved in the plan to fire these U.S. attorneys. It now turns out this was a complete falsehood. Harriet Miers was one of the masterminds of this plan, as demonstrated by numerous e-mails made public today. She communicated extensively with Kyle Sampson about firing of U.S. attorneys. In fact, she originally wanted to fire and replace the top prosecutors in all 93 districts in the country.
We were told that Karl Rove had no involvement in getting his protege appointed U.S. attorney in Arkansas. In fact, there is a letter from the Department of Justice:
The Department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.
Mr. Griffin was the attorney whom they appointed. It now turns out this was a falsehood, as demonstrated by Mr. Sampson's e-mail:
Getting him--
Griffin--was important to Harriet, Karl, et cetera.
We were told the change to the PATRIOT Act was an innocent attempt to fix a legal loophole, to help the war on terrorism, not a cynical strategy to bypass the Senate's role in serving as a check and balance. It now turns out this, too, was a falsehood--another one--as demonstrated by an e-mail from Mr. Sampson:
I strongly recommend that as a matter of administration, we utilize the new statutory provisions that authorize the AG to make USA appointments.
Mr. Sampson specifically argued that by using these provisions, the administration ``can give far less deference to home State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it faster and more efficiently at less political cost to the White House.'
So it has been misstatement after misstatement. To put it delicately, prevarication after prevarication, changes in stories, coverups in stories. And the only reason, frankly, we are getting to the truth is we have the majority, and we have the ability to subpoena and have hearings and investigate.
A few minutes ago, Attorney General Gonzales spoke. I have to say I have no animus toward Attorney General Gonzales. In fact, I like the man. He seems to me to be a genuinely nice man. He doesn't seem to me to be one of these hard popular warriors who populate the administration in such large numbers and, frankly, we have seen in Justice Department appointees throughout the Justice Department in far too great a number. But simply being a nice person, being a ``nice guy' is not enough, particularly when you are not performing your job.
The Attorney General got up and said:
I am ultimately responsible, but simply claiming responsibility is not enough.
He said:
I was not involved in any memos or discussions of what was going on.
That is his quote.
He said:
Many decisions are delegated.
Mr. President, did the Attorney General not know that eight U.S. attorneys were to be fired? If he didn't know, he shouldn't be Attorney General, plain and simple. That is not a minor personnel decision. That is a major act that has now shaken the integrity of the U.S. Attorney's Offices--not only those in question but all of them--to the core.
To simply say decisions were delegated, that is a sorry excuse. And then, of course, if the Attorney General knew, that one doesn't work either.
The Attorney General has said:
I will do the best I can to maintain the confidence of the American people.
Mr. Attorney General, you have already lost that confidence. It has not simply been on this issue, although this is the straw that has broken the camel's back, and when you sat in a room with Senator Leahy and Senator Feinstein and Senator Specter and myself last Thursday and seemed to give this crisis, most considered crisis, the back of your hand and say it is not terribly important and don't worry, we will fix it without caring about it, my total confidence was shaken, and I believe the others in the room felt the same.
This was, as I said, the straw that broke the camel's back. It was hardly the only decision. On issue after issue, the Attorney General has not stood up for the rule of law, which is his foremost duty. On issue after issue, whether it be wiretaps, whether it be national security letters, whether it be the unitary theory of the Executive, allowing the Executive to do everything with no checks and balances, this Secretary has been a rubberstamp for policies that the courts have found repeatedly unconstitutional.
The Attorney General, unfortunately, in my judgment, misconceives his role. The Attorney General misconceives his role because he still sees himself as counsel to the President, his previous job, where he rubberstamped everything the President did. But when you are the President's counsel, your job is to serve the President, period. When you become Attorney General, you have a higher duty. That duty is the rule of law--to preserve it, to protect it, to defend it. For whatever reason, the Attorney General doesn't see that as his role. His time in office should be over.
The U.S. attorneys scandal and all the other instances where the Attorney General did not protect the rule of law are just too great a weight for the office to bear. To simply say ``I am responsible' and not tell people what it is all about makes no sense. We just saw Scooter Libby be convicted. Many said he was a fall guy. We are not going to have another Scooter Libby, another fall guy. Kyle Sampson did many wrong things, and it is very possible he broke the criminal law, but, as Harry Truman said, the buck stops at the top. The buck stops with the Attorney General. It defies belief that his chief of staff was making all these major decisions without his knowledge, particularly when it is clear that at least on a few instances he admits he had phone calls from the President and from others about this issue.
I want to say one other thing, because this issue is not going to go away. This issue is going to stay with us until we find out everything that has happened, for the sake of punishing those who did wrong but also, more importantly, to clear the air and restore the good name of the U.S. attorneys who were fired incorrectly and of the U.S. attorneys--a more numerous group--who were not involved in this issue but whose reputations have been called into question. Tomorrow, if someone is indicted by a U.S. attorney who had no involvement in this scandal and their defense attorney says politics was involved, the public may believe it, given what we have seen happen thus far. So it is our obligation, it is our moral imperative to get to the bottom of this, to clear the air, and to restore the reputation of U.S. Attorney's Offices now and into the future, and that is just what we will do.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov/