Executive Session
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - February 03, 2005)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent my half hour be divided, with the first 10 minutes for myself, the second 10 minutes for the Senator from Washington, and the third 10 minutes to the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are not voting today on just any appointment. We are voting today on a nominee to be Attorney General of the United States, historically one of the most important positions of power in our Government. The position is more important today than it has ever been as we wage the war on terror. At a time with unprecedented tension between the goals of security and liberty, we must be absolutely certain the person we confirm as Attorney General is right for the job.
The Attorney General stands apart from all other Cabinet officers. For those other Cabinet officers, simply carrying out the President's agenda is enough. The Attorney General, on the other hand, has to be someone who will follow the law, not just toe the party line. He must be someone who will do justice for all people, not just push the President's program. There are many times that demand independence from the President, when the Attorney General is asked, for instance, to approve a wiretap of an entire group. The Attorney General must make that decision based on the law and the precedent, not on loyalty to the President. The Attorney General owes his ultimate loyalty to the law on many of the decisions he makes, not to the person who nominated him.
There will be times when the legal weight of precedent is more important than the political weight of the President. That is the nub of why the Attorney General is not a typical Cabinet position. At such times the country needs an Attorney General who can stand the heat and do the right thing.
Independence is not such a critical quality in other Cabinet positions. The position of Attorney General requires more neutrality and independence than, for example, the Secretary of State, whose obligation is to advance the President's interests abroad. We must be absolutely sure that an Attorney General nominee not only has the right experience but the right view of the proper role of an Attorney General, to be an independent, nonpartisan chief enforcer of the laws.
For that reason, it is with great sadness and some heartache, because I so like and respect Judge Gonzales as a person and as an inspiration to so many, that I report I am unsure Judge Gonzales is the right man for this crucial job.
As I have said before, Judge Gonzales has many impressive qualities. He is a good person. He has impeccable legal qualifications. He has a breadth of legal experience, including time as a lawyer, a judge, and a White House Counsel. And, of course, Judge Gonzales has the kind of Horatio Alger story that makes us proud to be Americans. But excellent credentials and an inspiring story are not enough, not in these times. One must also have the independence necessary to be the Nation's chief law enforcement officer.
When the White House asks the Justice Department for legal advice, on the other hand, the Justice Department is charged with giving an objective answer, not one tailored to achieve the President's goals. The Attorney General is supposed to provide sound legal advice in many of the decisions he or she renders, not political cover. As I have said before, it is hard to be a straight shooter if you are a blind loyalist.
I like Judge Gonzales. I respect him. I think he is a genuinely good man. I was initially inclined to support his nomination. I also believed, and I said publicly, that Judge Gonzales was a much less polarizing Attorney General than Senator Ashcroft has been. As I also said, being less polarizing than John Ashcroft is not enough to get my vote.
There are two models for an Attorney General, loyalist and independent. We know there are Attorneys General over the years who have been close to the President. There is no better example than Robert F. Kennedy, who served his own brother. That said, no one ever doubted in the confines of the Oval Office Bobby Kennedy would oppose his brother if he thought the President was wrong. Judge Gonzales is more of the loyalist type of Attorney General nominee than an independent type of Attorney General nominee, which does not alone disqualify him, but it raises serious questions.
After an extensive review of the record, unfortunately and sadly, despite my great personal affection for the judge, his testimony before this committee turned me around and changed my vote from yes to no. He was so circumspect in his answers, so allied with the President's position on every single issue, there was almost an eagerness to say, I will do exactly what the President wants, that I worry Judge Gonzales will be too willing to toe the party line even when the Attorney General is supposed to be above party. The Attorney General and the President are not supposed to be peas in the pod but, in short, Judge Gonzales still sees himself as chief counsel to the President rather than as chief law enforcement officer in the land, a very different type position.
Time and time again, this administration has gotten itself in trouble by going at it alone, by not seeking new opinions, by not reaching out, by doing things behind closed doors in the Justice Department, whether it was the total information awareness project, the TIPS Program, or torture. This Justice Department has been burned by a curious commitment to secrecy. I encouraged Judge Gonzales to be candid with the committee when discussing these issues. I encouraged him to give us some hope that he would run a very different Justice Department than John Ashcroft.
But, unfortunately, even a cursory review of his answers-and I reviewed them more than once-reveals strict adherence to the White House's line and not a scintilla of independence. If his answers are any indication, once again, Judge Gonzales still sees himself as White House Counsel rather than a nominee to be Attorney General.
When push comes to shove, the Attorney General needs to stand up to the White House. We live in critical times and face crucial tests. The age-old struggle between security and liberty, which defines so many of the Founding Fathers' debates is alive and kicking. In fact, at no time since the internment of Japanese citizens in World War II has it been more relevant. We should have open debate about where the line should be drawn. We should not be afraid to confront the difficult questions that face us.
I have gotten in trouble with some of my friends on the left for suggesting there should be a reexamination of how we interrogate terror subjects. If a terrorist knew where a nuclear bomb was in an American city, and it was about to go off in 30 minutes, my guess is everyone in the room would say, do what it takes to find out. But we just cannot remake these rules behind closed doors.
Judge Gonzales's hearing was an opportunity for real debate on those issues. Instead, we got canned answers. I have great respect for the judge. The story of his life and the record of his achievements are inspirations to all of us. I am mindful of the fact that if he is confirmed, as I anticipate he will be, Judge Gonzales will become the Nation's first Hispanic Attorney General. It is a tremendous success story that makes this vote even more difficult.
When I called Judge Gonzales, last week, to tell him how I would be voting, it was one of the more painful phone calls I have had to make in a long time. He was understandably disappointed, but he was, as always, a total gentleman. He assured me we would be working together to solve our Nation's problems. He assured me he would prove me wrong. I hope he does. But this is just too important a job at too critical a time to have an Attorney General about whom I have such severe doubts. I really have no choice but to, with sadness, vote no.
I yield the floor.
http://thomas.loc.gov