Expressing The Sense Of The Senate That Attorney General Alberto Gonzales No Longer Holds The Confidence Of The Senate And Of The American People--Mot

Floor Speech

EXPRESSING THE SENSE OF THE SENATE THAT ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO GONZALES NO LONGER HOLDS THE CONFIDENCE OF THE SENATE AND OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE--MOTION TO PROCEED -- (Senate - June 11, 2007)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I understand there is a misunderstanding. They weren't supposed to start until 5:10, but the order says 5 o'clock, which would only give us 10 minutes to debate this motion.

Let me begin and not waste any further time. I rise in support of the motion to proceed to a vote of no confidence on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. It is a fair measure. I know it is one with few precedents, but it is called for today because the dire situation at the Department of Justice is also without precedent. The level of disarray and dysfunction, the crisis of credibility, and the failure of leadership are all without precedent. It is a simple measure we have before us. Let me read it.

It is the sense of the Senate that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales no longer holds the confidence of the Senate and of the American people.

Are there any Members here who don't agree with that sentiment? If so, I haven't heard them. Senators are not a shy lot. Their silence on this point is deafening. So if Senators cast their votes with their conscience, they would speak with near unanimity that there is no confidence in the Attorney General. Their united voice would undoubtedly dislodge the Attorney General from a post he should no longer hold. But we may not have a unanimous vote here today, I am told. That is a puzzle because no matter what standard one applies, no matter what criteria one uses, the Attorney General cannot enjoy the confidence of the Senate. He certainly doesn't of the American people.

The bill of particulars against the Attorney General is staggering. On the question of the Attorney General's credibility, the record speaks for itself. Repeatedly, the Attorney General has misled the Congress, misled the American people, and given incredible explanations for the U.S. attorney firings. The Attorney General's comments have been a series of shifting reactions and restatements. Is this confidence-inspiring conduct from the Nation's chief law enforcement officer?

We learned that Attorney General Gonzales was personally involved in the firing plan after being told he wasn't. We learned that the White House was involved after being told it wasn't. We learned that Karl Rove was involved after being told he wasn't. We learned that political considerations were paramount after being told they weren't. Then, when the Attorney General finally had the opportunity to set the record straight on April 19, 2007, what did he do? More than 70 times he answered ``I don't know'' when asked the most basic questions about how he came to fire 10 percent of the Nation's U.S. attorneys. The Attorney General admitted he didn't know the reasons why several U.S. attorneys were fired but insisted in the very next breath that he knew they were not fired for improper reasons. Does that inspire confidence? One of our most mild-mannered Members, Senator Pryor, believes he was lied to directly by the Attorney General, and he has good reason to think so.

Time after time, the Attorney General has shown he doesn't have the credibility to lead the Department. This is not a liberal or conservative assessment. This is not a Democratic or Republican assessment. It is a universal one. Listen to the words of the conservative National Review magazine, which wrote on March 28:

What little credibility Gonzales had is gone ..... Alberto Gonzales should resign. The Justice Department needs a fresh start.

That is on credibility.

On the Attorney General's lack of commitment to independence and the rule of law, the record is also disturbingly clear. The Attorney General has long shown that he misperceives his role. He forgets that he is the people's lawyer, not just the President's. If one needs a single image to symbolize the Attorney General's contempt for the rule of law, it is that of Alberto Gonzales bending over John Ashcroft's sickbed on the night of March 10, 2004. It is the picture of then-White House Counsel Gonzales trying to take advantage of a very ill man who didn't even have the powers of the Attorney General to approve a program that the Department of Justice could not certify was legal.

That example, unfortunately, has plenty of company. Consider the image of Attorney General Gonzales in March of this year making Mrs. Goodling feel ``uncomfortable''--her word--by going through the sequence of events related to the U.S. attorney firings. How often do people comfort someone by reviewing their recollection of events that are subject to congressional investigation? Add to those examples the documented violations with respect to national security letters and other admitted abuses in connection with the PATRIOT Act. How can such leadership inspire confidence?

Rule of law in the Gonzales regime, sadly, has apparently been an afterthought rather than a bedrock principle. Again, there is no liberal or conservative or Democratic or Republican position on the Attorney General's lack of independence and commitment to rule of law; it is virtually unanimous. Consider the words of the conservative group the American Freedom Agenda:

Attorney General Gonzales has proven an unsuitable steward of the law and should resign for the good of the country.

On the question of whether the Department has been improperly politicized, the record is again clear.

Attorney General Gonzales has presided over perhaps the most politicized Department in history. We have learned that under Alberto Gonzales, being a ``loyal Bushie'' was more important than being a consummate professional. We have learned that U.S. attorneys who were performing their duties admirably were apparently dismissed because of unfounded allegations by political figures, allegations that were never investigated or never proven. We have learned that an unprecedented voter fraud case was brought in Missouri on the eve of an election in clear violation of the Department's own policy. We have learned that deep suspicions about improper politicizing even at the entry level of the professional ranks were correct. We have learned from the Attorney General's own former senior counselor Monica Goodling that she ``crossed the line'' in considering partisan affiliation in filling career positions at the Justice Department--career positions, not political positions.

The Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General have now opened investigations relating to the hiring of immigration judges, civil rights lawyers, and Honors Program attorneys. All of this, of course, occurred under the Attorney General's watch. Either the Attorney General knew about these potentially illegal activities and did nothing or he was oblivious to what was going on beneath his own nose. Either way, Mr. Gonzales is responsible for a deeply political culture at the Department, unprecedented in modern times. As former Deputy Attorney General Jim Comey has said, these kinds of blows to the reputation of the Department will be hard to overcome. Does that kind of leadership inspire confidence?

Finally, given all of this, on the basic question of competence and effectiveness, the Attorney General has proven himself to lack the leadership ability needed to right the Department. By every account, the Attorney General's handling of the U.S. attorney firings has been catastrophic. Morale at the Department is at an alltime low. How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who can't get his story straight? How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who still can't tell us why 10 percent of the Nation's U.S. attorneys were fired? How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who would allow his top staff to take the fall for his own failings? How can we have confidence in an Attorney General who allowed improper and possibly illegal political hiring to take place?

Given the crisis of confidence and credibility, given the abysmal record of trampling the rule of law and longtime standards of nonpolitical hiring, the vote today should be an easy one. Some will claim they are opposing the motion because they say this vote was called for political reasons. This vote is not about politics. If this were all about politics, it would be easy to sit back, let the Attorney General remain, cast aspersions on him for the next 18 months, and reap the political benefits. But the Department of Justice is too important, and we have an obligation to do everything we can in a bipartisan way to demand new leadership.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, first, in regard to my good friend from Texas, I think there is a little bit too much protestation here. We have spent less than 2 hours on this issue--just 2 hours--and now we are being told we don't have enough time to debate whether one of the most important Cabinet officers is up to the job. That doesn't hold water. They are not upset we are taking 2 hours away from debate. They have spent much more time on many more things that are of less consequence to this country.

But let me say this: The minority leader and the minority whip have made my case better than I ever could. They failed to utter the words: We have faith in Attorney General Gonzales. They failed to state: We have confidence in Attorney General Gonzales. In fact, in the entire speech of both the minority leader and the minority whip, there was not a single word uttered in defense of the Attorney General. No wonder the other side doesn't want this resolution brought up. They know the Attorney General has failed miserably in his job. They know the President has clung stubbornly to keeping a man who virtually no one in America thinks is up to the job, who overwhelmingly has lost his credibility in his answers and nonanswers and ``don't knows.'' They can't defend him. So they do what somebody does when they don't have much of an argument--they seek diversions. We will not be diverted. The rule of law is too important. The rule of law is too sacred.

Is it unusual to have a no-confidence resolution? Yes. But it is just as unusual--more unusual--to have an Attorney General not in charge of his department on a major issue facing his department--the firing of U.S. attorneys--to say he didn't know what was happening 70 times; to have an Attorney General contradict himself time after time after time. For me, it is unusual in whatever airport I go to around this country to have people come up to me--it has happened five or six times now--and say: I work in the Justice Department. I am a civil service employee. Keep it up, Senator. Our Department is demeaned--one of them used the word ``disgraced''--by the fact that Alberto Gonzales is still Attorney General.

So, yes, a no-confidence resolution is unusual, but this is not simply a policy disagreement. Oh, no. This is a major scandal. This is a series of inappropriate behaviors by a Cabinet officer. I don't have a single bit of doubt that if the shoe were on the other foot, my colleagues from the other side of the aisle would be complaining more loudly, more quickly than we have.

What do you do when there is someone in an office who we all know doesn't deserve to be in that office, and not a word--except for Senator Hatch--not a word of confidence has been spoken by the other side? We heard 19 minutes of speeches a minute ago. We don't hear the words: We support the Attorney General; we have confidence in the Attorney General; the Attorney General should be able to stay. It is because his record is indefensible.

So, yes, this no-confidence resolution is unusual, but it rises to the highest calling of the Senate, to seek rule of law over politics, to seek rationality and fairness over stubbornness and political games. This is what we are supposed to do. We have a function of oversight. There is no question Attorney General Gonzales has failed on credibility, on competence, on upholding the rule of law.

The Nation has been shocked by what he has done. He urged an ill John Ashcroft, on John Ashcroft's sickbed, to sign a statement that the Justice Department itself thought was not justified by the law in terms of wiretaps, and he is still Attorney General. John Ashcroft, who is hardly a liberal, hardly a Democrat, threatened to resign because of what then Counsel Gonzales attempted to do, and he is still in office.

The bottom line is very simple. We have a sacred, noble obligation in this country to defend the rule of law. There was an article in the New York Times the other day about how some people are using elections to try to justify themselves staying in office in some less developed countries. But the public wasn't falling for it, because without rule of law, without democracy, without law being applied without fear of favor, there is no freedom. Our job is to be vigilant in protecting that freedom.

Some of my friends tossed off charges of ``political''--to vote ``no'' when one, in fact, agrees with the sentiment in the resolution is to cast a vote for the worst political reasons. A ``no'' vote ratifies the President's support for the Attorney General. A ``no'' vote condones the conduct of the Attorney General. A ``no'' vote condemns the Department to a prolonged vacuum in leadership and a crisis of morale.

It is politics simply to cover for the President when you know on this issue he is wrong. It is politics to put blind loyalty to a political leader over the sacred century after century tradition of rule of law. It is politics to voice opposition to the Attorney General and then refuse to back one's conviction with one's vote. It is politics to know that Alberto Gonzales should not, must not, remain as Attorney General and then quietly, meekly cast your vote to keep him.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source