U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

35–728 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 110–47

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSIGHT

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JANUARY 18, 2007

Serial No. J–110–3

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

MICHAEL O’NEILL, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Grassley, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 233

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 1

prepared statement and letters ....................................................................... 247

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 3

WITNESS 

Gonzales, Alberto R., Attorney General of the United States, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................... 6

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Alberto R. Gonzales to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, 

Specter, Kennedy, Biden, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin, Grassley, 

and Cornyn ........................................................................................................... 67

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

American Civil Liberties Union, New York, New York, reports .......................... 177

Ehrlich-Steele Democrats, Official Voter Guide, November 7, 2006 ................... 210

Gonzales, Alberto R., Attorney General of the United States, Department 

of Justice, Washington, D.C., prepared statement ............................................ 212

Law deans and professors, joint statement ........................................................... 246

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 12, 2007, article ............................................................ 255

Washington Post, Jan. 13, 2007, article ................................................................ 257

(1)

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OVERSIGHT 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 18, 2007

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in room 

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Also present: Senators Kennedy, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold, Schumer, Cardin, Whitehouse, Specter, Hatch, Grassley, Kyl, and 

Cornyn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Good morning. Thank you, all of you, for coming. 

We are in a different hearing room than usual, but Attorney 

General, there was some interest in your testimony so we expanded 

the room somewhat. 

We are going to hold what I believe is an important hearing to 

examine the operations of the Department of Justice. This is, after 

all, the Federal agency entrusted with ensuring the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. 

As I have always done, I take our oversight responsibility very 

seriously. In the 32 years since I first came to the Senate, and that 

was during the era of Watergate and Vietnam, I have never seen 

a time when our constitution and fundamental rights as Americans 

were more threatened, unfortunately, by our own government. 

This last weekend, the President and Vice President indicated 

that they intended to override the will of the American people as 

expressed in the most recent national elections and ignore actions 

of Congress in order to escalate the war in Iraq. 

For years, the administration has engaged in warrantless wire 

tapping of Americans, I believe, contrary to the law. I welcomed the 

President’s decision yesterday to not reauthorize this program and 

to instead seek approval for all wire taps from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, as the law requires, as many of us have 

been saying should have been done years ago. 

Now, we must engage in all surveillance necessary to prevent 

acts of terrorism, but we can, and should, do so in ways that protect the basic rights of all Americans, including the right to privacy. 

To ensure the balance necessary to achieve both security and liberty for our Nation, the President must also fully inform Congress 

2

and the American people about the contours of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court order authorizing the surveillance program, but also the program itself. 

Regrettably, the administration has all too often refused to answer the legitimate oversight questions of the duly elected representatives of the American people. Unfortunately, the Justice Department has been complicit in advancing these government policies which threaten our basic liberties and overstep the bounds of 

our constitution. Some of the criticisms have been made by members of both parties. 

The Department has played a pivotal role, in my view, in eroding 

basic human rights and undercutting America’s leading role as an 

advocate for human rights throughout the world. 

Last week, the world marked the fifth anniversary of the arrival 

of the first prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, and they marked that 

anniversary with protests. That facility has replaced Abu Ghraib in 

the eyes of many, including some of our closest allies, our best allies, as a symbol of repression. 

For more than 2 years we sought answers from the Department 

of Justice about reported—and in some instances documented—

cases of the abuse of detainess at Guantanamo. 

I wrote to the Attorney General regarding press reports that the 

Central Intelligence Agency has finally acknowledged the existence 

of additional classified documents detailing the Bush administration’s interrogation and detention policy for terrorism suspects. 

I am glad that after initially refusing to provide any new information in response to my inquiries, the Attorney General wrote to 

me last week to say that he would work to develop an accommodation that would provide the Judiciary Committee with a sufficient 

understanding of the Department’s position on legal questions related to that CIA program. 

But I remain disappointed that the Department of Justice and 

the White House have continued to refuse to provide the requests 

documents to the committee. The administration’s secret policies 

have not only reduced America’s standing around the world to one 

of the lowest points in our history, but these policies also jeopardize 

the Department’s own efforts, ironically, to prosecute terrorism. 

Last week, USA Today reported that the Department’s terrorism 

case against Jose ́ Padilla is imperiled by concerns of Mr. Padilla’s 

treatment during his lengthy detention. The back-and-forth designation as a defendant and as an enemy combatant has eroded his 

mental capacity to such a great extent, he may not be fairly tried. 

After the administration and, I must say, the Republican-led 

Congress, eviscerated the great Writ of Habeus Corpus in just a 

matter of hours, eviscerated the great Writ of Habeus Corpus not 

just for detainees but for millions of permanent residents living in 

the United States, this Department of Justice filed a legal brief expressly reporting that result, raising the specter that millions living in the United States today can now be subjected to definite government detention. The shudder that sent was felt not only 

throughout our country, but around the world. 

This week, we commemorated the life and contributions of Dr. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. Sadly, while the Department has defended 

the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, I am concerned it is 

3

backing away from the vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights 

Act that the President promised only a few months ago. I know 

some of the Senators on this panel will have questions about that. 

In nearly 6 years in office, the Bush-Cheney administration has 

filed only one suit on behalf of African-American voters under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the key section that provides a 

Cause of Action for discrimination against minority voters. 

I am deeply concerned the Department of Justice is retreating 

from its core mission to hold those who would violate our criminal 

laws accountable. Now, last week the President told us he plans to 

spend $1.2 billion more, on top of the billions of dollars sent to Iraq 

for reconstruction. 

But despite mounting evidence of widespread corruption, contracting fraud, billions unaccounted for, the Department of Justice 

has not brought a single criminal case against a corporate contractor in Iraq, even though we know, just reading the press, about 

the huge amounts of money in taxpayers’ dollars that have been 

stolen in Iraq. 

The Department also has to do better at addressing the dangers 

that Americans face at home. According to the FBI’s preliminary 

crime statistics for the first half of 2006, violent crimes in the 

United States rose again. 

It troubles me that, while this administration is more than willing to spend more and more American taxpayer funds for police in 

Iraq, it is cutting back funding for our State and local police at 

home. 

I do not want to get into a debate on the Iraq war, but if we can 

spend money to buildup police forces in Iraq and we have to pay 

for it by cutting money for police forces in the United States of 

America, there are a lot of us across the political spectrum who 

think that is a Hobson’s choice. 

This committee has a special stewardship role to protect our 

most cherished rights and liberties as Americans and to make sure 

that our fundamental freedoms are preserved for future generations. 

So, there is much more to be done. I believe civil liberties and 

the Constitution of this great country have been damaged during 

the past 6 years. We will try to repair some of that damage. 

Attorney General Gonzales, I do thank you for being here. I want 

to say that I hope that disagreements we may have do not obscure 

my desire to work with you to make the Department of Justice a 

better defender of Americans and their constitutional rights. 

We will talk about this later on. I know there are areas that you 

will be speaking about this morning, about the competence of immigration reform, other areas. Let us find those areas we can work 

together. Let us repair some of the concerns—justifiable concerns—

Americans have. 

I will yield the rest of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

STATEMENT OF ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

4

We welcome you here, Attorney General Gonzales. The Congress 

has worked coordinately with the President on the major issues 

facing the country, the war against terrorism, with the resolution 

authorizing the use of force, and this committee structured the renewal of the Patriot Act, giving the Department of Justice substantial additional authority to fight terrorism. 

As we have authorized executive authority, we have simultaneously expressed our concern about the balance with civil liberties. I was pleased to note yesterday that the Department of Justice has revised the Terrorist Surveillance Program and has 

brought it within the review of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 

Your letter to Senator Leahy, the Chairman, and me noted that 

you had been working on it since the summer of 2005. It is a little 

hard to see why it took so long. We will want to inquire further 

into the details as to the process that you used. 

I thank you for the extensive briefing which I received yesterday 

from Steve Bradbury and Ken Wainstein, two very, very able attorneys in your Department. There are questions which remain unanswered. 

I talked to them and they said they would get back to me about 

a review of the affidavits submitted establishing what you have 

concluded is probable cause, and the orders which have been entered, and the review, which they represented to me, that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court is making. 

Without discussing many of the details in an open session, there 

is a question which was already raised publicly about whether review is programmatic or individual. Your representatives have said 

that it is individualized on the warrants. In their description to me, 

I think we need to know more on the oversight process. 

With respect to the time delay, the disclosure was made by the 

New York Times on December 16. It was a Friday. We were wrapping up the Patriot Act. The disclosure of that secret surveillance 

program was a major complicating factor. I think had that not been 

noted, that we would have gotten that Act finished before December 31 and I think it would have been stronger in some material 

respects. 

I believe that the United States and the administration have 

paid a heavy price for not acting sooner to bring the Terrorist Surveillance Program under judicial review. That is the traditional 

way; before there is a wire tap or a search and seizure, to have 

probable cause established and to have court approval. 

We lost a close election. I would not want to get involved in what 

was cause and effect, but the heavy criticism which the President 

took on the program, I think, was very harmful in the political 

process and for the reputation of the country. So I will be inquiring 

further as to why it took so long and what could have been done 

further. 

As you know, this committee was hard at work with legislation 

which I had proposed and others had co-sponsored. We had four 

hearings, and I think we could have been of assistance to you if we 

had been consulted. 

Turning to the issue of habeus corpus, I note in your statement 

that the bills which have been introduced ‘‘defy common sense’’. I 

5

do not think Chairman Leahy and I would object to the characterization of the legislation which we introduced jointly to reinstate 

habeus corpus. 

I do not think we would object to your characterization that our 

actions have defied common sense. But when you take a look at 

what the Supreme Court has said on this subject, Justice Stevens 

wrote in Rasul v. Bush, habeus corpus has been applied to persons 

detained within the United States. It has embraced claims of aliens 

detained within the sovereign territory of this country. 

It is a little hard for me to understand how the Writ of Habeus 

Corpus, which goes back to the Magna Carta, can be modified by 

any legislation when there is an explicit constitutional provision 

that the Writ of Habeus Corpus would not be suspended except in 

time of invasion or rebellion. No one contends that either of those 

situations is present. 

When you come to the issue of common sense, it goes beyond Pat 

Leahy and Arlen Specter to Justice Stevens and the four justices 

who joined him. It goes to Justice O’Connor in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 

when she outlined that the Writ of Habeus Corpus applies to every 

individual detained within the United States. 

When your prepared statement cites the 1950 Supreme Court decision under totally different circumstances in World War II, any 

vitality of that decision is long gone with the recent pronouncements by the Supreme Court of the United States. 

The issue of the signing statements, Mr. Attorney General, continues to be a matter of major concern. They came up in the Patriot 

Act, which was very carefully negotiated with the Judiciary Committee and the Department of Justice. Then the President issues 

a signing statement saying that he is at liberty to disregard provisions on oversight. It came up with the McCain legislation on torture. 

Now it has come up with the legislation on the postal authority, 

where the President signed the legislation which prohibited opening mail, and then issues a signing statement that he retains the 

authority to do that. 

If the President is asserting that the Act of Congress is unconstitutional, then he ought to say so and not sign the Act. But if he 

signs the Act, as provided in the Constitution that the Congress 

presents him an Act, he has the choice of either approving the Act 

or of vetoing it. Matters of that sort put a very, very considerable 

strain on the relations between the legislative and executive 

branches. 

I wrote to you on November 20 requesting two memoranda which 

relate to the subject of rendition. You were quoted in the Chicago 

Tribune, saying that the decision on whether there will be rendition depends on the likelihood as to whether there will be torture 

or no torture, leaving open the possibility of torture. 

I discussed this with you personally, and then got, really, a pro 

forma letter back from one of your assistants. My suggestion to 

you, Mr. Attorney General, would be that when the Chairman or 

the Ranking press a matter, write to you, talk to you about it personally, that you ought to give it your personal attention on a response. 

6

I would suggest to you, further, that when you cite in your letter 

to me that these are highly classified matters, that you consider informing at least the Chairman and the Ranking Member, as is the 

practice on the Intelligence Committee, which I know in some detail, having chaired that committee in the 104th Congress. 

I have a number of other points to make, but my red light is now 

going on so I shall thank the Chairman and conclude. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Specter. 

What we will do, after the Attorney General’s opening statement, 

we will have 7-minute rounds. The Attorney General is going to 

stay here throughout most of the day. I understand from the floor 

that the flurry of votes we had late last night will not be repeated, 

certainly during the morning, so I would urge Senators to stay 

within that time. 

Mr. Attorney General, please stand and raise your right hand. 

[Whereupon, the witness was duly sworn.] 

Chairman LEAHY. I would also note that this is, of course, an 

open hearing. We have television. We have 18 Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who have a constitutional duty to their 

constituents, to their office to ask questions, and they want to be 

heard. They want to have the answers heard. 

Also, though, it is a public hearing and the public has a right to 

watch what is going on. I understand that there are people in the 

audience who wish to demonstrate their feelings about things. 

I would point out, however, that in standing, you are blocking 

the views of people who want to hear this. I think, as matter of 

politeness, you do want to give those people behind you a chance 

to watch these hearings. One of the great things about this country, is we have such hearings and people can be heard. 

Mr. Attorney General, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ALBERTO R. GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF THE UNITED STATES, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look 

forward to our conversation this morning about the important work 

of the Department of Justice. 

The Department of Justice’s responsibilities are vast, as we all 

know, but our top priority continues to be the prevention of terrorist attacks. At the Department of Justice, every day is September 12th. 

I expect that much of our discussion today will focus on matters 

related to the war on terror. In particular, I expect that you will 

want to discuss the letter I sent to Chairman Leahy and Senator 

Specter yesterday regarding the President’s decision not to reauthorize the Terrorist Surveillance Program. 

Court orders issued last week by a judge of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court will enable the government to conduct 

electronic surveillance, very specifically, surveillance into or out of 

the United States, where there is probable cause to believe that 

one of the communicants is a member or agent of Al Qaeda or an 

associated terrorist organization, subject to the approval of the 

FISA court. 

7

We believe that the court’s orders will allow the necessary speed 

and agility the government needs to protect our Nation from a terrorist threat. I look forward to discussing these matters further. 

I hope that we also can discuss other non-terrorism matters. I 

am keenly aware of the responsibilities that I have, and that all 

of you have, that are not related to terrorism, but nonetheless are 

of great importance to the American people. 

First, I hope we can discuss a few things we can do together to 

keep American neighborhoods safe from the threat of violent crime, 

gangs, and drugs. The vast majority of this work is done by State 

and local law enforcement agencies, but the Department of Justice 

plays an important and unique role. 

The Department’s indictment last week of 13 members of the 

MS–13 street gang is an excellent example of the good work that 

is being done by the law enforcement community that works together at all levels, State, local, and Federal. 

Despite our increased focus on combatting terrorism, investigating and prosecuting violent criminals remains a core function 

of DOJ. Although the overall violent crime rate is down, near a 30-

year low, we have an increase in certain types of crime in some 

areas of the country and this concerns me. 

To better understand these increases, Department officials have, 

over the last 2 months, visited 18 cities. In some of these cities the 

violent crime rate had increased, while in others it had decreased. 

In each State, we met with State, local, and Federal law enforcement, as well as with community groups, to discuss the unique 

causes of, and responses to, crime in their city. Although our analysis is not complete, it is clear that there is no one-size-fits-all response. Every city is different. The appropriate response to crime 

in each city depends on its particular circumstances. 

In the coming months, we will make policy recommendations 

based on our research, the crime trends we identify, and the best 

practices that have been developed. 

Second, I hope we can discuss an emerging problem, the abuse 

of prescription drugs purchased over the Internet, and the things 

that we can do together to address this issue. Prescription drug 

abuse is now the second-largest form of drug abuse in the United 

States, and the only rising category of abuse among youth. 

Now, feeding this abuse is a proliferation of illicit web sites that 

offer controlled substances for sale, requiring little more than a 

cursory online questionnaire and charging double normal price. 

Make no mistake, these illicit web sites are not about getting 

necessary medicine to this in need. We must preserve legitimate 

access to medications over the Internet, while preventing online 

drug dealers from using cyberspace as a haven for drug trafficking. 

I look forward to working with the Congress to ensure that controlled substances are dispensed over the Internet only for legitimate medical purposes. 

Similarly, I look forward to working with the Congress to protect 

our children from pedophiles and sexual predators. Protecting our 

kids is a top priority for me as Attorney General and as a father. 

It is a shame that the Internet, the greatest invention of our 

time, has provided pedophiles and child pornographers with new 

opportunities to harm our children. This is a new and evolving 

8

criminal law enforcement challenge that we are addressing aggressively. 

Last year’s enactment of the Adam Walsh Act was historic, and 

I want to thank the committee for its work on that important bill. 

It is clear to me every day, however, that more tools are needed. 

I continue to hear from Federal, State, and local law enforcement 

that they need access to the information that will help us find online predators and child pornographers. There are children to be 

rescued through the prosecution of these dangerous criminals. I ask 

you to work with me this year on this critical issue of protecting 

those who cannot protect themselves. 

I also hope that your desire to protect our Nation’s children from 

unthinkable sexual abuse will influence you to reform the mandatory nature of Federal sentencing guidelines. 

The advisory guideline system we currently have as a result of 

the Supreme Court’s Booker decision can, and must be, improved. 

The Sentencing Commission has determined that, post-Booker, in 

almost 10 percent of all cases involving criminal sexual abuse of a 

minor, judges have given below guideline sentences. Similarly, in 

over 20 percent of cases involving possession of child pornography, 

defendants are being sentenced below the guidelines’ ranges. 

Now, sentences should be fair, determinant, and tough. I call 

upon this body to enact legislation to restore the mandatory nature 

of the guidelines to ensure that our criminal justice system is both 

fair and tough. 

One of the last issues I want to present to the committee today 

is the urgent need to reform our immigration laws. As the grandson of Mexican immigrants and as a law enforcement official, border security and immigration reform are close to my heart and always on my mind. 

The President and I believe that we can take pride in being an 

open country and a Nation of immigrants, while also protecting our 

country from those who seek to harm us. 

I will conclude with one final, and I believe urgent, request: 

please give the President’s judicial nominees an up-or-down vote. 

Currently, there are 56 judicial vacancies, half of which have been 

designed as ‘‘judicial emergencies’’. 

During the 107th Congress when Senator Hatch chaired this 

committee, 73 Federal judges nominated by President Clinton were 

confirmed, 15 of those were for the Circuit Court. I urge this committee to treat President Bush’s nominees at least as fairly as 

President Clinton’s were treated. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I am happy 

to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Gonzales appears 

as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Attorney General. 

You know, there has been discussion of signing statements here. 

I would like to go into that area, first. I was deeply disturbed by 

the President’s recent signing statement for the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act. It suggests that the Bush administration is opening Americans’ mail without first obtaining a warrant. 

9

Now, when you appeared before this committee in February of 

2006, I asked you whether the President believed that he had the 

legal authority to open mail under the Authorization for the Use 

of Military Force, AUMF, the authorization we gave to go into Afghanistan and get Osama bin Laden, something I wish had happened. You went to great lengths to avoid directly answering my 

questions. 

Last week, our exchange appeared in the Washington Post editorial critical of the President’s signing statements, and I put a 

copy of the editorial up there. I will, at this point, place it in the 

record. 

I just believe from that I had asked you whether AUMF had permitted the warrantless opening of mail. 

You answered, ‘‘There was all kinds of wild speculation out there 

about what the President has authorized. What we’re actually 

doing, I’m not going to get into a discussion, Senator, about 

hypotheticals.’’

I responded, ‘‘Mr. Attorney General, you are not answering my 

question. Does this law—you are the chief law enforcement officer 

of the country. Does this law authorize the opening of First Class 

mail of U.S. citizens, yes or no, under your interpretation? ’’

You responded, ‘‘Senator, I think—I think that, again, that is not 

what is going on here. We are only focused on communications, 

international communications where one part of the communication 

is Al Qaeda. That is what this program is all about.’’ I said, ‘‘You 

have not answered my question.’’

Now, my concerns about this issue are not, as suggested in our 

exchange, hypothetical. Thirty years ago, Congress placed limits on 

the government’s authority to open private mail after the Church 

Committee found that the CIA and the FBI had been illegally 

opening citizens’ mail for years. 

It turned out they were doing that because they found some of 

these citizens were protesting the war in Vietnam, as many did, or 

that some opposed discrimination against blacks in America. The 

FBI and CIA were going to investigate why they would take such 

‘‘terrible’’ positions. 

Now, surely there are circumstances when the government 

should not have to wait for court approval to open mail, so it can 

save lives or protect public safety, but we have a provision in the 

law that allows you to do that. 

But given the willingness of this President to ignore the law, to 

claim extraordinary information-gathering powers in the name of 

the war on terror, I think would deserve a straight answer on this 

question. 

You are the chief law enforcement officer of this country so I ask 

you, is the Bush administration opening Americans’ private mail 

without a warrant, yes or no? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, the answer is no, but let 

me flesh out the answer. I mean, obviously there may be instances 

where either the sender or recipient may consent to a physical 

search, so that possibility may exist. 

But to my knowledge, there is no physical search of mail ongoing 

under either the authority to use military force or the President’s 

inherent authority under the Constitution, except as otherwise auVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jun 07, 2007 Jkt 035728 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35728.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
10

thorized by statutes passed by the Congress. For example, there 

are provisions in FISA which would allow physical searches under 

certain circumstances. 

Chairman LEAHY. I understand. You understand some of our concern because of the willingness—and we may disagree on this—of 

the administration to ignore FISA in wire taps. Are you saying that 

they are following FISA in mail openings? 

Attorney General GONZALES. What I am saying, Senator, is that 

to my knowledge there is no ongoing physical searches of mail 

under the authority we have claimed, under the authorization to 

use military force, or under the President’s inherent authority 

under the Constitution as far as I know. 

Chairman LEAHY. Not ongoing. Has there been some? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Not that I am aware of. No, sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Does the President believe he has the inherent 

constitutional authority to open Americans’ mail without a warrant? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Now you are asking me to get into 

an analysis that, quite frankly, the Department has not done. What 

I would point you to is Justice Jackson’s analysis under Youngstown in terms of looking at the inherent authority of the President, 

looking at the inherent authority of the Congress in weighing 

those. 

Chairman LEAHY. But if you take Youngstown, we have laid out 

pretty clearly what the authority is following the Church Committee with FISA and everything else. Do you think the President 

has authority under AUMF, notwithstanding the requirements of 

the FISA statute? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I am not prepared to answer that question. I think for purposes of today’s hearing, I think 

it is important for everyone to note that, as far as I know, there 

is no ongoing physical searches of mail under the authorization to 

use military force—

Chairman LEAHY. And there has not been? Attorney General 

Gonzales. And, to my knowledge, there has not been any kind of 

authorization of that nature. 

Would you know if there was? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I think that I would know, sir. Yes, 

sir. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, then why in heaven’s name did the 

President feel he needed to issue a signing statement? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, he issued that signing statement to preserve the authority we believe exists under FISA, under 

other statutes. So when you have got the President signing a statute saying, this is the only way you can engage in physical 

searches, the President wanted to preserve the authority you gave 

to him under the other statute. That is the purpose of issuing the 

signing statement. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Attorney General, can you understand a 

certain skepticism up here? It was done late in the week on something that actually is a compulsory organization, has nothing to do 

with FISA, in no way—in no way—goes into FISA, no way adds to 

or undercuts FISA. 

11

And then we see one of these signing statements that, late in the 

day, kind of slipped out—in fact, most people did not find out about 

it until about a week later—saying, oh, by the way, I have the authority to just open your mail. 

Do you understand why we might be just a tad concerned? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, from our perspective there 

was a possibility of misconstruing the statute in a way that would 

take away from the President existing authorities that the Congress had given under other statutes, and the President simply 

wanted to preserve the authorities that Congress had already 

granted to him. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, let me go into another area of this. The 

FBI has always had the ability to issue national security letters, 

and it has done that. But now we find, not from anything that has 

been told to us in our oversight, but we find from the New York 

Times—sometimes I wish it would just mark the New York Times 

‘‘top secret’’. We would get the information quicker, in more detail, 

with the wonderful crossword puzzle at the same time. 

But they reported that the Department of Defense and CIA have 

greatly expanded the use of non-compulsory national security letters to acquire Americans’ sensitive financial records. There were 

500 requests for financial records since 9/11. 

Why in heaven’s name do we have the Department of Defense 

and CIA spying on Americans? I mean, if we are going to be doing 

that, if we are going to be doing it legally, it should be done 

through your Department? 

We have always tried to keep the Department of Defense and the 

CIA outside our borders and not delving into the Americans’—especially since Corantelpo and things like that—lives. Why are they 

doing it? Why has the Department of Justice not said, if there is 

a need for this, we will do it? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I do not know if the DoD 

activity, which appears to be permitted—there are at least five 

NSL statutes, so whether or not this is a grand expansion, I think 

perhaps it is an incorrect characterization. 

There has been authority provided by the Congress for certain 

law enforcement agents and certain agencies to engage in the collection of these kinds of business records. That is what we are talking about here, business records in the hands of third parties. So 

there is no constitutional issue here, per se. 

Chairman LEAHY. But it has always been the law enforcement in 

the FBI. Law enforcement officials have done that, or those normally involved in law enforcement. All of a sudden, we have the 

CIA and the Department of Defense going into internal American 

matters. 

Does this not trouble you? 

Attorney General GONZALES. If the stories are true, of course it 

would be very troubling. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, are they true? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, I do not know if they are true 

or not. 

Chairman LEAHY. Did you ask? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I do not believe that they are true. 

Chairman LEAHY. Have you asked? 

12

Attorney General GONZALES. I have not asked, personally, in 

terms of whether or not the Department of Defense—

Chairman LEAHY. But this is going into your normal bailiwick. 

Why have you not asked? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Again, Senator, I think by statute 

the Congress has decided that certain agencies do have the authority to engage in this kind of collection of information. 

Let me just remind you, you cannot use it for criminal investigation. You cannot use it for domestic terrorism. You can only use it 

in connection with espionage investigations, and only with international terrorism. 

So when you have DoD, who has bases all around the country, 

they could be involved in an espionage investigation. Congress has 

decided that they do have the authority to use national security letters. 

Chairman LEAHY. Attorney General, in fairness to my colleagues, 

I will come back to this, because I have used my time. I also know 

that DoD has even gone and found Quakers who protest, that 

somehow they are going to protect their bases. Quakers tend to 

protest wars. It has happened a lot in this country. 

But before I turn it over to Senator Specter, let mention that 

Senator Specter and I joined together in asking the Chief Judge of 

the FISA court for copies of the decisions of that court that you announced publicly on Wednesday. The court is apparently willing to 

provide these decisions to the committee. You have no objection to 

that, do you? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I think that is a decision 

that I would like to take back to my principal, quite frankly. 

Listen, let me just be real clear about this, however. I am extremely proud of the work of the lawyers involved in trying to get 

this application completed and this application approved. 

I somewhat take issue—it is hard for me to do—with Senator 

Specter’s innuendo that this was something that we could have 

pulled off the shelf and done in a matter of days or weeks. There 

is a reason why we did not do this as an initial matter shortly after 

the attacks of September 11th. 

The truth of the matter is, we looked at FISA and we all concluded, there is no way we can do what we believe we have to do 

to protect this country under the strict reading of FISA. 

Nonetheless, because of the concerns that have been raised, we 

began working in earnest to try to be creative, to push the envelope. Where is there a way that we could craft an application that 

might be approved by the FISA court? 

So shortly after I became Attorney General I asked that we redouble our efforts to see if we could make that happen, so we have 

been working on it for a long time. It took a great deal of effort, 

and I am very, very proud of the work of the attorneys at the Department. 

Chairman LEAHY. I do not think I fully understand. Are you saying that you might object to the court giving us decisions that you 

publicly announced? Are we a little Alice in Wonderland here? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I am not saying that I have objections to it being released. What I am saying is, it is not my decision 

to make. 

13

Chairman LEAHY. No, but it is the court’s decision, is it not? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Let me just make one final point. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, we are going to ask the court for them 

anyway. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I cannot remember what is in the 

orders now, but certainly in the application there is going to be information about operational details about how we are doing this 

that we want to keep confidential. 

That has been shared with Senator Specter. We have offered to 

make that information available to you, Mr. Chairman. We will 

continue to have a dialog to provide as much information as we can 

about the operational details, but I am sure you can appreciate the 

need to keep that information confidential. 

Chairman LEAHY. We are going to continue our request that the 

court give us those decisions. They appear to be willing to. If parts 

of it have to be in closed session, we will do that. 

Senator Specter, I am sorry. 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General Gonzales, I have already noted my request to 

your subordinates to see the applications, the Statement of Probable Cause, and the orders. That is really indispensable for our appropriate oversight responsibilities. 

Your letter to Senator Leahy and me yesterday recites that you 

have been on this since the summer of 2005. Now, I am not entirely unfamiliar with the issues involved here, but I cannot help 

but conclude that there has not been a sufficient sense of urgency 

on the part of the Department of Justice to get this job done faster. 

I just do not see it as a 19-month undertaking. I say that in the 

context which, as you know, I introduced legislation a year ago on 

this subject to send this matter to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. 

I cannot understand why, in that context where I discussed it 

with you personally, with your subordinates, and with the President personally, that this committee and I were not made privy to 

what was going on so that we could help you. 

But we are going to pursue this to see if there is any conceivable 

justification for more than a year and a half elapsing. I have dealt 

with complicated matters and I do not see a justification with a 

sufficient sense of urgency. 

Let me move on to the disclosures 10 days ago about the CIA and 

the Department of Defense conducting surveillance on American 

citizens. 

There is a very basic distinction between the role of the FBI and 

the CIA. That is, that the CIA is overseas and the FBI has exclusive jurisdiction over domestic investigations. On that fundamental 

point Attorney General Gonzales, is that distinction not correct? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I do not recall what the 

story said about the CIA’s involvement. 

Senator SPECTER. Answer my question as to whether—

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, it is correct. 

Senator SPECTER. It is correct. Well, then I, again, am at a loss 

to see what the CIA is doing on domestic investigations. 

Now, with respect to the Department of Defense, the Department 

of Defense has no authority to investigate American citizens. We 

14

have a Posse Comitiatus Act. We have very severe limitations for 

the Department of Defense. 

Is there any justification for the Department of Defense moving 

into an area where the exclusive authority rests with the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I think, Senator, again, my reading 

of the statute is that they would have the authority to engage in 

the investigation related to espionage. 

Senator SPECTER. What statute? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Either the Right to Financial Privacy Act, two provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, Section 

2709 of Title 18, and Section 802 of the National Security Act. 

Senator SPECTER. What do those Acts say about the Department 

of Defense? Supply that answer in writing so we can see exactly 

what you have in mind. 

When I walked in this morning—no, no. It was not when I 

walked in, it was after I walked in and was seated here. I got a 

letter from Richard A. Hertling, Acting Assistant Attorney General, 

Office of Legislative Affairs. Now, Mr. Hertling is a good man. He 

used to work for me; I thought I had trained him. 

This contains your responses to the hearing 6 months ago, July 

18 of last year. We have 186 pages. I am a speed reader, Attorney 

General Gonzales, but not this speedy. There are lots of issues I 

would like to ask you about. Can you come back tomorrow so I 

have a chance to read this tonight? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I will come back as soon as I can, 

Senator. 

Senator SPECTER. How about tomorrow? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I will come back as soon as I can. 

Senator SPECTER. How about tomorrow? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, Senator, let me—

Senator SPECTER. Is there any justification for dropping this on 

us this morning? 

Attorney General GONZALES. No, there is not. 

Senator SPECTER. All right. I thank you for that direct answer. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I am disappointed at placing the 

committee in that position. It should not have happened. 

Senator SPECTER. On a couple of investigative matters, Attorney 

General Gonzales, we had the Director of the FBI before us in December. And I raised with him the issue of a leak on an FBI investigation about Congressman Weldon shortly before the last election. Director Mueller said that he was ‘‘exceptionally disappointed’’, and that it was ‘‘unfair in advance of an election.’’ He 

is looking at an investigation which might be a ‘‘criminal’’ investigation. 

Will you advise this committee, or at least the Chairman and 

Ranking Member, what the progress of that investigation is? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I will certainly go back and see 

what information we can provide. Let me also say, Senator, that 

I was, likewise, very, very disappointed—angry—about that leak. I 

do not care if it was before an election or whatever, leaks relating 

to ongoing investigations should not happen. 

I know that all the U.S. Attorneys were advised by the Office of 

U.S. Attorneys that things like this should not happen. I know that 

15

Alice Fisher, head of the Criminal Division, notified everybody 

within the Criminal Division that this kind of stuff is intolerable 

and should not happen. 

Senator SPECTER. Attorney General Gonzales, will you inform 

this committee, or at least the Chairman and Ranking Member, 

about what is happening on the anthrax investigation which hit, 

not close to home, but at home? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, Director Mueller, I believe, 

has offered to give the Chairman a briefing. We are waiting to try 

to accommodate the Chairman’s schedule to make that happen. We 

understand the frustration and the concern that exists with respect 

to the length of time. This is a very complicated investigation. 

I know that the Director is very committed to seeing some kind 

of conclusion in the relatively near future, and so we are prepared 

to sit down and brief the Chairman with respect to the progress. 

Chairman LEAHY. If the Senator would just yield a moment. If 

there is going to be a briefing of me as Chairman, I would want 

the Ranking Member included in that briefing. Obviously I have 

beyond a professional interest. I have a personal interest, insofar 

as somebody tried to kill me with those anthrax letters, and the attempt killed at least two people. 

One, I would like to know why I was singled out, but mostly, for 

the now, I guess, five people who were killed and several others 

who were crippled by that anthrax attack, I would like the perpetrator brought to justice. This was on my time, not on Senator 

Specter’s. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, let me reclaim just a little time, Mr. 

Chairman, to finish up on this subject. The FBI has resisted telling 

us what is happening in that matter. 

We have had tremendous resistance from the Department every 

time we move into what you claim is an ongoing investigation or 

pending prosecution. Let me remind you of the commitment which 

your Department has made. 

I wrote to you and I wrote to Deputy Attorney General McNulty 

referencing the standards set forth in extensive memorandum by 

the Congressional Research Service, which concluded that ‘‘the Department of Justice has been consistently obliged to submit to congressional oversight, regardless of whether litigation is pending, 

and that the oversight authority of the Congress extends to documents respecting open or closed cases that include prosecutorial 

memoranda, FBI investigative reports, summaries of FBI interviews, memoranda, and correspondence prepared during the pendency of cases.’’

Then I asked Mr. McNulty, ‘‘I would like your specific agreement 

that the Department of Justice recognizes the oversight authority 

of this committee.’’ Mr. McNulty said, ‘‘You have my agreement.’’

Now, let me remind you, Mr. Attorney General, that we have not 

had that agreement carried out. I cite the anthrax investigation 

and the Weldon matter as two matters which have attracted the 

attention of this committee, and would ask for your responses specifically. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

16

Next, we will call on actually the most senior of this committee 

and nearest the Chairman of the committee, Senator Kennedy. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. 

Welcome, General Gonzales. Many of us believe that the war 

that we are fighting in Iraq today bears no resemblance to the war 

Congress authorized in 2002. Our troops are being asked to take 

sides in a civil war in a country where militias operate with impunity, where sectarian violence is the norm, and where ethnic 

cleansing is taking place neighborhood by neighborhood. I do not 

believe any Member of Congress would have authorized our involvement in a civil war. 

I have introduced legislation to require congressional authorization to escalate our involvement in Iraq. The bill would prevent the 

President from increasing the number of troops unless Congress 

authorized him to do so. 

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly gives Congress the 

extensive power over a war. It gives it the power, under Article 1, 

to lay and collect taxes, to provide for the common defense, to declare war, grant letters of mark and reprisal, make rules concerning captures on land and water, raise and support armies, to 

provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the government, 

regulation of the land and naval forces, to provide for calling forth 

the militia to execute the laws of the Nation, suppress insurrections and repel invasions, to provide for organizing, arming, and 

disciplining the militia. 

James Madison wrote, ‘‘The Constitution supposes, but the history of all governments demonstrate, that the executive is the 

branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It 

has, accordingly, with studied care, bested the question of war in 

the legislative branch.’’

So I have a letter here which I will share with you, and I will 

ask that it be included in the record, from leading constitutional 

scholars confirming that Congress has this authority. 

They say, ‘‘Congress may limit the scope of the present Iraq war 

by either of two mechanisms. First, it may directly define limits on 

the scope of that war, such as by imposing geographic restrictions 

or a ceiling on the number of troops assigned to that conflict. Second, it may achieve the same objective by enacting appropriations 

restrictions that limit the use of appropriated funds.’’

The letter concludes, ‘‘Far from an invasion of Presidential 

power, it would be an abdication of its own constitutional role if 

Congress were to fail to inquire, debate, and legislate as it sees fit 

regarding the best way forward in Iraq.’’

Now, my question, General, do you accept that Congress does 

have the authority to prevent the President from increasing troop 

levels in Iraq in the manner I have described? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I do not know if I am prepared to answer that question. I am prepared to say that I have 

had many conversations about this, and I may have said that during my confirmation hearings, I think if you look at the framework 

of the Constitution, the framers clearly intended that, during a 

time of war, that both branches of government would have a legitimate role to play. 

17

At the far end, you have got the power of the Congress to declare 

war. I think at the other end you have the core sort of commanderin-chief authority to say, take that hill. Then things get kind of 

murky. 

But, clearly, you recited certain provisions in the Constitution 

which clearly provide Congress the authority to raise and support 

armies, to provide and maintain a navy, the power of the purse. 

So, clearly, Congress does have a role to play in the execution of 

the war. As to whether or not the legislation that you were referring to would be constitutional, would be one that I would have to 

evaluate under the Youngstown framework. 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. 

But you recognize that when the Constitution says it may limit, 

we are not talking about assigning battalions into different field 

positions or we are superimposing a judgment on the use of troops 

in any form, we are talking about the general direction or the scope 

of the war. 

As this memo points out, ‘‘imposing the geographic restrictions or 

ceiling on the number of troops assigned to it,’’ or it may achieve 

the same by enacting appropriations. You do not deny that those 

two powers rest in the Congress. 

As I understand your question, it is whether the legislation conforms with that. Are you questioning whether the Constitution 

gives us the authority and the power? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Rather than giving you an answer 

here without looking at the words as to the constitutional of the 

Congress vis-a-vis the President during a time of war, I would like 

the opportunity to look at it and respond back to you. 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. I will make it available to you. 

I believe that the President needs to have congressional authorization if he is going to invade Iran. What is your position on that? 

Do you agree with me? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I am not aware of any plans to invade Iran. 

Senator KENNEDY. I am not asking whether he is planning to. If 

he were to invade Iran, I believe that he would have to come to 

the Congress for authorization. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, for example, if there were 

an attack by Iran, I think the President would have constitutional 

authority to defend this country. So there may be circumstances 

where I am not sure that that would necessarily be true. It would 

depend on a lot of circumstances and factors that we would have 

to look at. 

Senator KENNEDY. I am not talking if it is an attack of retaliation. It is clearly described in the Constitution, and also in the War 

Powers Act. That is all clearly outlined, after a great deal of debate 

and passage by Republicans and Democrats, with a great time of 

deliberation. 

I am asking, now, just as we are looking at the current situation 

in Iran, whether it is your understanding, as the principal advisor 

of the President on legal matters, that he has a requirement to 

come to the Congress for an authorization prior to the time of invasion? 

18

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, again, I am not aware of any 

plans to invade Iran, and I can assure you, in providing advice to 

the President, I would make sure that he understood that the Constitution does give to the Congress a role with respect to the country going into war. Again, you are asking me a difficult constitutional question absent of any facts that I think would be important 

in providing an answer. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think this is distressing and disturbing 

to leave out there that somehow there are the circumstances where 

you think that an invasion of Iran would not require an authorization by the Congress of the United States. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I think we all understand 

that. Certainly I understand that. My reading of the interpretation 

of the Constitution, is with respect to the country going into war, 

the country is better off when the branches are working together. 

Clearly, the framers intended that, with respect to the country 

being at war, being in combat, that the Congress would have some 

role as spelled out in the Constitution. 

Senator KENNEDY. My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Hatch.

Senator KENNEDY. Oh, Mr. Chairman? I get 7 minutes. I thought 

it was five. I have another 2 minutes. Excuse me. 

General, I am disturbed by the pattern of the administration of 

pushing policies and practice that trample on the constitutional 

legal rights—we referred to those, or the Chairman did, earlier—

and then backing off or purporting to back off when a court of law 

is about to rule against you or Congress is about to act. This was 

done yesterday in announcing that the warrantless wire tapping 

program be brought under FISA. 

We still have to learn more facts about that. After years of insisting that it could not be, I am told you rushed to court to argue that 

the most advanced challenge to that program is now moot. 

In the case of Jose ́ Padilla, when he was detained unlawfully for 

years, about to go to the Supreme Court, at the last minute you 

charged him with crimes unrelated to the allegations pursuant to 

which he had been held, and you have done it in defending the use 

of torture. 

You were nominated for Attorney General and then went back 

and had the repeal of the old torture statute, the Bybee memorandum, and then came up with a new torture statute and went 

on for your confirmation. 

All of the while, the administration was criticizing raising the 

issue of the patriotism of individuals that were critical of those actions, whether it was torture or whether it was in these other 

areas, FISA and other areas. 

This, I think, raises, as has been pointed out, time, resources, 

and really squandered the support of the other branches of government and the American people. 

Your reaction? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, we have taken actions that 

we believed were absolutely necessary. The President has ordered 

actions that he believed was absolutely necessary to protect the security of our country. 

19

You mentioned our actions with respect to obtaining orders from 

the FISA court. This was not motivated by the litigation. We began 

this process well in advance of the disclosure of the program, and 

thus well in advance of the litigation. 

We began this action simply because the President believed that 

there was no other alternative, there was no other way to do it, no 

other way to protect this country, and because there was a firm belief—and that belief continues today—that he does have the authority under the Constitution to engage in electronic surveillance 

of the enemy, on a limited basis, during a time of war. That is consistent with tradition and practice, and that is certainly not inconsistent with the various Circuit Courts that have looked at this 

issue. 

So I would simply say that the President at all times has been 

motivated in terms of what he believes is the right thing to do to 

protect this country in a manner that is consistent with the Constitution and his obligation as the Chief Executive and the Commander in Chief. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

General, welcome. I personally appreciate the service you have 

given. I know you have inherited this job at one of the toughest 

times in the history of the world, let alone our own country. These 

issues are very difficult issues and there are differing points of 

view with regard to many of these issues. 

As we all know, that is why the Supreme Court is constantly 

hearing constitutional cases, so they can determine whether one 

side or the other is right, or just exactly what constitutional principles to go with. 

With regard to Iran, there are so many variable-fact situations 

that you could conjure up where a president would have an obligation to defend the country, so to just come out and say, well, you 

cannot go to war with Iran without approval of the Congress, I 

mean, that is such an over-simplification that you cannot even discuss it constitutionally, other than, it is an over-simplification. 

There are all kinds of problems. 

In this world of terrorism where these people do not wear uniforms, they do not represent a country, they basically represent a 

minority ideology that is not embraced by the vast majority of Muslim people in the world, and they do not care about human life, including their own. 

It is easy to sit back and criticize, but we live in a world of real 

controversy and real difficulty. I think you are in a very, very 

tough position here. From what I have seen, you have done your 

very dead-level best to make sure constitutional principles are followed and that the Justice Department handles matters in a respectable, decent, honorable way, and I want to commend you for 

it. 

But let me just change the subject. You correctly emphasized 

that the Internet has radically changed the world of obscenity and 

child exploitation. We hear every day about child exploitation in 

this country. 

20

It has changed the way the material is produced, marketed, distributed, and even used. It has been 21 years since the Attorney 

General established a commission to study obscenity and pornography to make recommendations for us. The Internet did not even 

exist when the commission did its work. 

Last September when you testified before the Senate Banking 

Committee, my colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett, raised this 

issue with you and you were open to considering it. I want to repeat the suggestion here. 

Will you consider establishing a new commission to study this 

crisis and make recommendations, with a particular focus on the 

Internet? I believe that the Internet is part of the problem when 

we come to child molestation and some of these issues that have 

been in the news every day for a long time. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I have considered it. I am 

willing to sit down with you and get your views about it. I think 

we are doing a lot already in terms of, I established an obscenity 

task force. We have got 52 obscenity convictions. 

We had a training session down in South Carolina a few months 

ago where a representative from every U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

came. I went and spoke, Paul McNulty went and spoke. The purpose of this was to emphasize the obscenity prosecutions around 

the country. 

Many of the recommendations of the Meese Commission, of 

course, are reflected in laws passed under the PROTECT Act, the 

Adam Walsh Child Protection Act, so I think we have done a lot. 

I am, however, still very concerned about this issue and the threat 

to our children. I characterize it as a battle. It is a war and we 

need more resources. So, if we need the commission, that is something I am happy to sit down and talk with you about. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I think you ought to consider it. 

You mentioned the Adam Walsh Act just a minute ago, and also 

in your testimony. That is one of the most important goals we have 

enacted around here in a long time, and I commend you for your 

support of it and for the help that you gave the committee in the 

process. 

Now, Title 5 of the Act includes language I introduced strengthening the requirement that the producers of sexually explicit material keep records regarding the age and identity of performers. 

Now, the existing law, which covered one category of child porn, 

had not been enforced and the Adam Walsh Act extended it to 

cover a second category. 

Has the Department issued new regulations for implementing 

these recordkeeping requirements, and can you assure that you 

will vigorously enforce this bill, and also any regulations that are 

issued? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, we already are enforcing the 

provisions of 2257. We had a recent conviction with respect to 

‘‘Girls Gone Wild’’. So we already are making some progress. You 

are right, the Adam Walsh Child Protection Act required certain 

amendments to the law. 

We are in the process now of getting those regulations approved. 

I am pushing as hard as we can to get it done. But, yes, sir, you 

have my commitment that we will vigorously enforce the law. 

21

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. You have, in the past, expressed concern that investigators in child exploitation cases sometimes hit dead ends because Internet service providers have not 

kept data that would help determine the source of images posted 

on the Internet. How big a problem is this for law enforcement, and 

is there something Congress can do to help solve it? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, it is a problem. You are right. 

We have encountered investigations where the evidence is no 

longer available because there is no requirement to retain the data. 

Many ISPs do retain data for commercial purposes. 

Let me just say, most ISP companies are great partners with the 

law enforcement community, so I want to commend them for their 

efforts. 

However, those few cases where we need that information, the 

question is, how do we maintain that evidence? So for that reason 

I have had discussions with the ISP community, with victims’ 

groups, with privacy groups about whether or not it makes sense 

to have some kind of legislation dealing with data retention, not 

data retained by the government, but data retained by ISPs that 

could be accessed through a court order by the Department of Justice from a court judge. 

I think that I would like to have a discussion with the Congress 

about that. I know we are all committed to doing everything we 

can to ensure the safety of our kids. 

Senator HATCH. Well, let us work on it. 

Now, General Gonzales, we debated this issue of Presidential 

signing statements before. I wonder sometimes if these debates 

have not provided more heat than light. Am I right that this is not 

something invested by President George W. Bush, but that many 

presidents have issued such statements? 

Attorney General GONZALES. They began with Thomas Jefferson, 

so there have been a series of presidents, including President Clinton, who made great use of signing statements, which represent 

only a dialog between the President of the United States, the 

American people, the Congress, but primarily the executive branch 

about the interpretations of certain provisions and a piece of legislation that may be constitutionally suspect. 

Senator HATCH. Well, am I also right that top legal officials in 

past administrations have repeatedly opined that these signing 

statements can be used for various perfectly legitimate reasons, 

and do these reasons include an explanation of how the administration, the executive branch, which is charged with enforcing or implementing the laws Congress passes, will interpret and enforce a 

particular statute? Is that not an accepted, legitimate use of Presidential signing statements? 

Attorney General GONZALES. That has been the uniform analysis 

of the executive branch throughout various administrations of both 

parties. I might also add that the Congressional Research Service 

did a review of signing statements and, likewise, concluded that 

they could not see any inherently unconstitutional or inappropriate 

use of signing statements by presidents. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I think it is very important. My time is up, 

but let me just make this one comment. I think it is very important 

22

to be crystal clear about issues like the signing statement we discussed earlier. 

As I understand it, the President was preserving other legal authority he already has. He was not asserting any new authority. Is 

that a fair statement? 

Attorney General GONZALES. That is correct. In fact, I would 

think that the Congress and the American people would want to 

know his thinking about legislation and his thinking about the implementation of legislation. I mean, again, this is a dialog between 

the President of the United States, the American people, the Congress, and, of course, the executive branch. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, General. My time is up. 

Chairman LEAHY. Under our rules of appearance, Senator Kohl 

of Wisconsin would go next. But Senator Feinstein of California is 

managing a bill on the floor. Senator Kohl, in his usual gracious 

manner, has yielded first to her. 

Senator Feinstein, you are recognized. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you very much. I want to thank my 

friend and colleague, Senator Kohl. The bill goes up at 11, so I very 

much appreciate this. 

Good morning. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Good morning, Senator. Good to 

talk to you again. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. Mr. Gonzales, let me speak as a 

member of the Intelligence Committee for a minute. I want to commend you for the action—the corrective action—you have taken on 

the Terrorist Surveillance Program. 

I believe bringing it into conformance with the law is the right 

thing to do. In my briefings on the program, I believe you are doing 

that. I think there are a couple of things outstanding which we can 

discuss, but not in this forum. I just want to say, I think it is overdue, but thank you for taking that action. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I just say that we continue 

to believe that what has happened in the past, the President’s actions were, of course, lawful. But I think this is a good step. I think 

involving all branches of government on such an important program is best for the country. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

Now, let me ask you one question. One part of the letter you sent 

to the Chair and Ranking Member said that the President will not 

be reauthorizing the Terrorist Surveillance Program following, I 

guess, the end of this 45-day period. What will happen to it? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, there will be no ‘‘Terrorist 

Surveillance Program’’. All electronic surveillance, as defined under 

FISA, of the kind described in the letter, international communications outside the United States where we have reasonable grounds 

to believe that a party to the communication is a member or agent 

of Al Qaeda or an affiliate organization, that that will all be done 

under an order issued by a judge in the FISA court. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Thank you. 

You and I talked on Tuesday about what is happening with U.S. 

Attorneys. It spurred me to do a little research, and let me begin. 

Title 28, Section 541 states, ‘‘Each U.S. Attorney shall be appointed 

for a term of 4 years. On the expiration of his term, a U.S. AttorVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jun 07, 2007 Jkt 035728 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35728.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
23

ney shall continue to perform the duties of his office until his successor is appointed and qualified.’’

Now, I understand that there is a pleasure aspect to it, but I also 

understand what practice has been in the past. We have 13 vacancies. Yesterday you sent up two nominees for the 13 existing vacancies. 

Attorney General GONZALES. There have been 11 vacancies created since the law was changed, 11 vacancies in the U.S. Attorney’s 

offices. The President has now nominated as to six of those. As to 

the remaining five, we are in discussion with home-State Senators. 

So let me publicly sort of preempt, perhaps, a question you are 

going to ask me. 

That is, I am fully committed, as the administration is fully committed, to ensure that with respect to every U.S. Attorney position 

in this country, we will have a Presidentially appointed, Senateconfirmed U.S. Attorney. 

I think a U.S. Attorney, who I view as the leader, law enforcement leader, my representative in the community, has greater imprimatur of authority if in fact that person has been confirmed by 

the Senate. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. 

Now, let me get at where I am going. How many U.S. Attorneys 

have been asked to resign in the past year? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, you are asking me to get 

into a public discussion about personnel. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. No. I am just asking you to give me a number, that is all. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I do not know the answer. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I am just asking you to give me a number. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I do not know the answer to that 

question. But we have been very forthcoming—

Senator FEINSTEIN. You did not know it on Tuesday when I 

spoke with you. You said you would find out and tell me. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I am not sure I said that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Yes, you did, Mr. Attorney General. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, if that is what I said, that is 

what I will do. But we did provide to you a letter where we gave 

you a lot of information about—

Senator FEINSTEIN. I read the letter. 

Attorney General GONZALES. All right. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. It does not answer the questions that I have. 

I know of at least six that have been asked to resign. I know that 

we amended the law in the Patriot Act and we amended it because 

if there were a national security problem the Attorney General 

would have the ability to move into the gap. We did not amend it 

to prevent the confirmation process from taking place. 

I am very concerned. I have had two of them ask to resign in my 

State from major jurisdictions with major cases ongoing, with substantially good records as prosecutors. I am very concerned because, technically, under the Patriot Act, you can appoint someone 

without confirmation for the remainder of the President’s term. I 

do not believe you should do that. We are going to try to change 

the law back. 

24

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, may I just say that I do 

not think there is any evidence that that is what I am trying to 

do? In fact, to the contrary. The evidence is quite clear that what 

we are trying to do is ensure that, for the people in each of these 

respective districts, we have the very best possible representative 

for the Department of Justice and that we are working to nominate 

people, and that we are working with home-State Senators to get 

U.S. Attorneys nominated. So the evidence is just quite contrary to 

what you are possibly suggesting. Let me just say—

Senator FEINSTEIN. Do you deny that you have asked, your office 

has asked, U.S. Attorneys to resign in the past year, yes or no? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes. No, I do not deny that. What 

I am saying is, that happens during every administration, during 

different periods for different reasons. So the fact that that has 

happened, quite frankly, some people should view that as a sign of 

good management. 

What we do, is we make an evaluation about the performance of 

individuals. I have a responsibility to the people in your district 

that we have the best possible people in these positions. That is the 

reason why changes sometimes have to be made, although there 

are a number of reasons why changes get made and why people 

leave on their own. 

I think I would never, every make a change in a U.S. Attorney 

position for political reasons or if it would in any way jeopardize 

an ongoing serious investigation. I just would not do it. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. Well, let me just say one thing. I believe very 

strongly that these positions should come to this committee for confirmation. 

Attorney General GONZALES. They are, Senator. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I believe very strongly we should have the 

opportunity to answer questions about it. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I agree with you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. I have been asked by another Senator to ask 

this question, and I will. Was there any other reason for asking 

Bud Cummings of Arkansas to resign, other than the desire to put 

in Tim Griffin? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, again, I am not going to 

get into a public discussion about the merits or not with respect to 

personnel decisions. I will say that I have had two conversations, 

one as recently as, I think, yesterday with the Senator from Arkansas about this issue. He and I are in a dialog. 

I am consulting with the home-State Senator so he understands 

what is going on and the reasons why, and working with him to 

try to get this thing resolved, to make sure for his benefit, for the 

benefit of the Department of Justice, that we have the best possible 

person manning that position. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. If I could move on quickly. 

In 2000, the last year that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives issued a report with an analysis, it was revealed that 57 percent of all guns used in crimes in the United 

States had come from 1.2 percent of licensed gun dealers. In other 

words, the majority of crimes were not coming from guns from the 

black market, but from a few licensed dealers. 

25

Now, this information was really quite useful. But starting in 

2004, the Congress added amendments on the CJS appropriations 

bill restricting BATFE’s ability to share gun trade data with local 

jurisdictions. 

In the 109th Congress there was no CJS bill, so therefore the 

gun trace data effort died in the Senate. So, it is now possible to 

provide this gun trace data to bona fide law enforcement organizations on a local level. 

As you know, murder has gone up. As you know, there are real 

substantial problems. I think the murder rate in one city in my 

State is 33 percent. It is a real problem out there, what is happening. 

My question is this: do you support allowing State and local law 

enforcement to have access to BATFE gun trace data? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I need to go back and look 

at this because your question has confused me. It was my understanding that we already are sharing gun trace data, State and 

local, for law enforcement purposes. 

My understanding is that certain State and local officials wanted 

the information for non-law enforcement purposes. That has been 

the issue. I am told by professionals at ATF that that would jeopardize their law enforcement efforts. I am not sure why that is the 

case. I am happy to look into it and get back to you on that. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. But you do support gun trace data going to 

governmental entities on the local level? 

Attorney General GONZALES. For law enforcement purposes. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. For law enforcement purposes. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes. And I believe that that is ongoing, so that is why I am a little bit confused by your question. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. All right. I think that is fair. I think we need 

to check it out. But I know places where it has not gone for law 

enforcement purposes, so I would be happy to talk with you about 

that further. My time is up. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I am just wondering, when we take our break 

for lunch, would it be possible to get the numbers that Senator 

Feinstein has asked for? 

Attorney General GONZALES. The number? I think it is possible. 

I will certainly—

Senator FEINSTEIN. U.S. Attorneys asked to resign. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, that is information that I 

would like to share with you. I do not want to have a public discussion about personnel decisions. It is not fair, quite frankly, to the 

people. 

Chairman LEAHY. We are just curious as to the numbers. I do 

not care who they are. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes. 

Chairman LEAHY. I want to know numbers. Thank you. 

Senator FEINSTEIN. That is fine. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Kyl? 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, first, let me say there have been several 

stories—there was one in the Wall Street Journal yesterday as a 

26

matter of fact—about U.S. Attorneys’ Offices prosecuting people in 

connection with Internet gambling. 

I want to compliment you and the various offices that have engaged in those prosecutions because they have begun to deal seriously with a very difficult problem. Congress passed a law at the 

end of last year that requires Treasury to issue some regulations 

so that banks can more easily comply, and I hope that your office 

will work with Treasury so that those can be done quickly and effectively and that your office can continue to engage in these prosecutions. 

Attorney General GONZALES. It is my understanding, Senator, 

that we have already initiated discussions, or have been in discussions with Treasury, so that process is moving and hopefully it can 

be completed in an expeditious manner. 

Senator KYL. Excellent. 

You have taken quite a bit of abuse, I guess I would say, at this 

hearing and in the media generally over a variety of efforts that 

your office has been engaged in relating to the war against terrorists, the TSP program, detainee, habeus corpus issues, various 

prosecutions. 

I suppose that is somewhat inevitable, and I suspect you do not 

need any reminder that if there were another terrorist attack on 

this Nation, probably that criticism would quickly evaporate and 

instead you would be up here trying to answer why you did not 

connect all the dots and why you were not more vigorous in your 

effort to protect the American people, and so on. 

I suppose it is the nature of a body like the Senate always to engage in that kind of second guessing, but I do want to encourage 

you, notwithstanding this criticism which I know is heartfelt and 

genuine in terms of the people who are making the criticism, but 

I do strongly encourage you to continue to perform your functions 

under the law as best you understand them for the benefit of the 

American people, because this war against these international terrorists is deadly serious. Much of our protection will come from the 

efforts of the people that work in the Department of Justice and 

the other agencies of the U.S. Government. 

Attorney General GONZALES. You have my commitment to that, 

Senator. Let me say one thing in response to some stories that I 

read. The President of the United States would not have authorized the action that was disclosed yesterday if there was any doubt 

in his mind that it would make the United States any less safe. 

He has been advised by the Director of National Intelligence, by 

the Director of NSA, that this is something that we can do and still 

maintain the same level of safety and security for the United 

States of America. I mean, that is his number-one priority and that 

is what we kept in mind as we tried to find a way to bring this 

program under FISA. 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. At any time that 

you believe that you do not have the proper authority to engage in 

what you believe are necessary activities to protect the American 

people, I would expect you to come to this committee and let us 

know. 

27

I know there are some outstanding things you would like to have 

us do that we have not done that would assist in those efforts, and 

hopefully we will be able to advance some of those in the future. 

You stated in your testimony that various proposals to repeal the 

enemy combat litigation provisions of the MCA and the DTA are 

ill-advised and defy common sense. Again, with respect to those 

who have made these comments, I have to agree that this would 

be a very, very bad idea. 

The effect would be to not only allow prisoners held at Guantanamo to literally sue the soldiers that are guarding them, their 

captors, but also to contest all manner of conditions of their detention there, contrary to all precedent not only in this country, but 

in other countries as well. 

Then such as Khalid Shiek Mohammad and Ramsey ben AlShied, both of whom were involved in the September 11th attacks. 

These proposals would also, as I understand it, allow any enemy 

detainees held inside the United States to sue to challenge detention and conditions of confinement. If I am incorrect in this in 

terms of your understanding, please let me know, but I think this 

is accurate. 

I think back on World War II about the roughly 425,000 German 

prisoners of war that were held in the United States. What would 

the Justice Department have done, or the Defense Department at 

that time, if these POWs had had the habeus corpus rights that are 

being sought by the proponents of this legislative change? 

By the way, did we allow these prisoners to bring habeus actions, 

to sue? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, I am not aware of any specific 

cases. Someone may have thought about it, but obviously we did 

not have a situation. We had 400,000 claims, people claiming illegal detention or people claiming mistreatment. That just did not 

happen. People would have thought it rather odd, quite frankly. 

These were lawful combatants. These were people that fought according to the rules. So the notion that we would do that for people 

that were unlawful combatants, who do not follow the rules, I think 

people would say that is somewhat odd, also. 

I think people lose sight of the fact that we, as a government, 

provide more process to unlawful combatants than prisoners of war 

get under Geneva, so you are actually penalized by finding according to the rules. 

Under Geneva, you are captured on the battlefield, you have a 

battlefield determination: you are a prisoner of war. That is it. 

There is no more determination. Here, if you are an unlawful combatant, you get multiple evaluations. If you are sent to Guantanamo you get a CSRT you get—

Senator KYL. What is that? 

Attorney General GONZALES. That is a Combatant Status Review 

Tribunal, where there is a proceeding that provides a meaningful 

opportunity for the detainee to present his case that he is not lawfully detained. 

Senator KYL. Represented by American lawyers? 

Attorney General GONZALES. He is not represented by a lawyer, 

per se. There is a lawyer involved that is sort of his legal repVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jun 07, 2007 Jkt 035728 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35728.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
28

resentative or helper. I would not call him his counsel, but he is 

represented by counsel on appeal. 

He has a direct right of repeal to the DC Circuit, and there he 

is provided counsel. He also has a right, if the Supreme Court 

wants to hear his challenge, to take it up to the Supreme Court. 

Senator KYL. Now, that right of direct appeal to the Court of Appeals, we wrote that in the statute. That was unprecedented. Is 

that correct? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes. The amount of process we provide is unprecedented not only for unlawful combatants, it is, quite 

frankly, unprecedented for prisoners of war, lawful combatants. So 

we have gone well, well past what is precedented. 

I think the United States should, quite frankly, be proud of the 

amount of process that it provides to unlawful combatants who kill 

innocents indiscriminately, who do not follow the rules, and yet 

nonetheless the people of the United States have decided we are 

going to provide these individuals CSRTs, we are going to provide 

them access to a court, when that has never, ever in the history 

of this country been done before. 

Senator KYL. Mr. Chairman, do I understand my time has expired? 

Chairman LEAHY. The Senator’s time has expired. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. But we will be having another round. 

Senator KYL. No, no. That is fine. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Kohl, you were very patient and yielded your time earlier. Please, go ahead. 

Senator KOHL. Mr. Attorney General, I would like to discuss the 

rise in violent crime in our country with you. As you may know, 

I discussed this topic with the FBI Director in December, and since 

then violent crime statistics for 2006 have been made available, 

which unfortunately show that 2005 was not an aberration, but 

rather part of a very unfortunate trend. 

Our entire country has been hit hard by a crime wave, and my 

own city of Milwaukee is no exception. There are no doubt a variety of factors that have contributed to this rise. 

The FBI, for example, used 2,190 fewer agents in 2004 on traditional crime matters than it did in 2000 due to the essential focus 

on terrorism. This decreased Federal involvement, as you know, 

places a greater burden on our State and local law enforcement 

communities. 

For exmaple, the Milwaukee police received $1 million from the 

COPS program in 2002, but last year it received no funding at all. 

Mr. Attorney General, we are not giving our States and our localities the help that they so desperately need. Now, we are all on the 

same team, I know, and we all have the very same goal in mind. 

I would like to make a particular request to you on behalf of Milwaukee. Can I ask you to pledge yourself to taking some time to 

study the situation in Milwaukee and report back to me on what 

can be done by way of some increased level of Federal funding on 

behalf of law enforcement to help to reverse this trend? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, you do have my commitment. I think we should all be proud of the historically low crime 

rates that we have enjoyed recently. There have been some disVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jun 07, 2007 Jkt 035728 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35728.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
29

turbing trends with respect to certain kinds of violent crime, with 

respect to certain places in the country. 

You talked about it in terms of a ‘‘crime wave’’. What we are seeing are increases, disturbing trends, with respect to certain areas 

of the country and certain-size communities. 

Nonetheless, I am concerned about it and for that reason we initiated this Initiative for Safer Communities, where I sent out 

teams to 18 cities. Milwaukee was one of them. 

We wanted to study Milwaukee carefully and see what was working, what was not working, and we are going to take that information and hopefully come up with some good ideas that we can share 

with you and the American people about how we address this 

issue. 

As you also know, Milwaukee was one of the cities that I identified last year to receive $2.5 million for a special gang initiative, 

where we would focus on prevention and education efforts, law enforcement efforts, and prisoner reentry efforts in your community. 

We want to see how these initiatives around the country—Milwaukee being one of them—work. 

If people come up with some good ideas, then perhaps we will 

come to the Congress and try to get some more money and provide 

similar grants to other communities around the country. We, of 

course, have programs like Project Safe Neighborhood, where we 

make funds available to State and local communities. I think we 

are doing a lot, but I am worried about it, too. 

Obviously, State and local officials are our best partners. We 

want to feel like they are appreciated. I look forward to working 

with you, and you have my commitment, in particular, with respect 

to Milwaukee. We will look at it and see what else we can do there. 

Senator KOHL. That is very kind of you and I very much appreciate that. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you very much. Yes. Did you want to 

say something? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes. I received some bad information, and I apologize for this. Milwaukee was not a city that received one of these. I confused it with Minneapolis, and my apologies. But you still have my commitment that we are going to study 

it. 

Senator KOHL. If you will look at Milwaukee, that would be very 

good of you. Thank you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator Cornyn? 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome Attorney General Gonzales. I wanted to talk a minute 

about the questions that Senator Feinstein raised about the process 

by which interim U.S. Attorneys are appointed so that we can understand this better and perhaps put it in context. 

My understanding is that prior to the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, the Attorney General had the authority to appoint an interim U.S. Attorney for a period up to 120 days. After 120 days the 

courts, before which the U.S. Attorney would appear, would make 

a longer term interim appointment until such time as the President 

nominated, and the Senate confirmed, a permanent U.S. Attorney. 

Is that correct? 

30

Attorney General GONZALES. That is correct. As you might imagine, Senator, that creates a problem, a court where he has been appointed by the judge, and so that created a problem. 

We had, also, a problem of judges, recognizing the oddity of the 

situation, who kind of refused to act, so we have to take action, or 

give them a name or something, but it created some discomfort 

among some judges. Other judges were quite willing to make an 

appointment. 

Regrettably, though, you have the potential for a situation where 

someone is appointed who has never worked at the Department of 

Justice, does not have the necessary background check, cannot get 

the necessary clearances, and so that is a serious problem, particularly during a time of war. 

So for these reasons, quite frankly, I think the change that was 

made in the reauthorization of the Patriot Act makes sense. I have 

said to the committee today under oath that we are fully committed to try to find Presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed 

U.S. Attorneys for every position, but they are too important to let 

go unfilled for any period of time, quite frankly. 

It is very, very important for me, even on an interim basis, the 

qualifications, the judgment of the individuals serving in that position. 

Senator CORNYN. Mr. Attorney General, this was not just sort of 

an odd arrangement before the reauthorization of the Patriot Act, 

it raised very serious concerns with regard to the separation of 

powers doctrine under our Constitution, did it not? 

Attorney General GONZALES. It does in my mind. Again, it would 

be like a Federal judge telling you, I am putting this person on 

your staff. 

Senator CORNYN. That is because the U.S. Attorney is the chief 

law enforcement officer for the district concerned. So it would seem 

problematic for the top judicial branch official to name his executive branch counterpart. The process that Senator Feinstein asked 

questions about that is now the norm after the reauthorization of 

the Patriot Act, that is something Congress itself embraced and 

passed by way of legislation, and the President has signed into law. 

Is that correct? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I believe it reflects the policy decision, the will of the Congress, yes. 

Senator CORNYN. And I find it a little unusual that some of our 

colleagues are critical of the Justice Department replacing Bush 

appointees with interim appointments until such time as we can 

get a permanent U.S. Attorney nominated by the President and 

confirmed by the committee. 

I just want to raise three quick examples of delays, unfortunately 

not caused by the administration, but by this committee itself in 

terms of confirming high-level nominees at the Justice Department. 

For example, Alice Fisher, whose nomination waited a period of 17 

months before this committee actually confirmed her nomination. 

Then there is Kenneth Wainstein, who was appointed to a brandnew position, as you know, the head of the Counterterrorism Division at the Department of Justice. This was a recommendation by 

the WMD Commission and others. This nomination was obstructed 

31

for 6 months, until September 6, 2006, which allowed this new, important position to remain vacant for a half a year. 

Then there is the inexplicable—to me, anyway—case of Steve 

Bradbury, who serves in a very important position as head of the 

Office of Legal Counsel, Acting, who is yet to be confirmed even 

though he was nominated June 23, 2005. 

As you know, Mr. Bradbury was integral to our efforts to deal 

with this issue of, how do we try terrorists like Khalid Sheik Mohammad consistent with the Supreme Court’s decisions and our 

Constitution? 

So I appreciate your willingness to make sure that the administration nominates U.S. Attorneys on a timely basis. Hopefully this 

committee and the Congress, the Senate, will meet the administration more than half way and schedule up-or-down votes on the 

nominees that the President sends forward. 

Let me take off also on this issue of violent crime. You mention 

the Project Safe Neighborhoods, and I want to ask you just a couple of words about that. You cover this at some length in your prepared statement. 

Of course, I have a special interest, as you know, because of the 

origins of Project Exile out of Richmond, Virginia, originally a 

project of the U.S. Attorney there which we embraced in Texas 

when I was Attorney General, with then-Governor Bush. 

We launched Texas Exile, which at the time was an innovative 

program to combine the resources of Federal, State, and local law 

enforcement agencies to focus on gun crime, of course, to make sure 

that our laws were strictly enforced. 

But I have to tell you that I am very pleased with what I see 

are the results of Project Safe Neighborhoods, under which this effort has now been taken nationally, where you report a 66 percent 

increase in the number of cases filed and a 55 percent increase in 

defendants prosecuted since fiscal year 2000. 

Could you just touch on, for a moment, the importance of our 

prosecution of individuals who are violating our gun laws in this 

country in terms of stemming the tide of violent crime? Also, I have 

seen a lot of public service announcements pointing out the harm 

inflicted on the families of those individuals who violate our gun 

crime laws and what that does in terms of deterring those sorts of 

crimes. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I appreciate the question, Senator. 

I think we have made good progress in addressing violent gun 

crimes in this country because of the programs like Project Safe 

Neighborhoods where we are working in partnership with State 

and local communities in terms of providing training, sharing information, making joint decisions about, where is it appropriate and 

the best place to prosecute someone? 

In certain cases it makes more sense to prosecute them in Federal court because, quite frankly, we have tougher gun laws and we 

can get tougher sentences. So, I think it has made a big difference 

in our ability to reduce the level of violent gun crime. 

I am often asked, do we need additional gun laws? Obviously 

that is something we would always be willing to look at, but I 

think the evidence shows that if we continue our diligence in enVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jun 07, 2007 Jkt 035728 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35728.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
32

forcing existing laws, we can make a big difference in reducing gun 

crime in this country. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Feingold is next. I should note that Senator Feingold is 

going to chair the Constitution Subcommittee, one of the more important subcommittees of this committee. 

Senator Feingold? 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you, Mr. Attorney General. 

First, let me associate myself with the remarks of my senior Senator, Senator Kohl, in raising the concerns about crime, in particular in the city of Milwaukee, and I want to thank him for his 

leadership on this issue. Thank you for your response and your 

willingness to take a real look at it. In light of what he said about the loss of $2 million for the COPS 

programs in Milwaukee, and in light of what you said about Minneapolis, I hope Milwaukee is next in line for that kind of money. 

Mr. Attorney General, it was a welcome change to learn that the 

President, with regard to the NSA program, has decided to return 

to the law. For more than 5 years, this administration conducted 

an illegal wire tapping program, including more than a year during 

which you and others publicly asserted that this violation of the 

law was absolutely essential to protecting the public from terrorists. As Senator Kennedy already mentioned, you actually questioned the patriotism of those who criticized you. 

But the President has been forced to return to the law. Based on 

your announcement yesterday, this illegal program has been terminated. Now, that is a stunning—and I would say long overdue—

change of direction. 

In light of these developments, I also hope that the type of inflammatory and inaccurate rhetoric we heard from you and the 

President about this program is over. I was particularly concerned 

about a speech you gave in November which I raised with the FBI 

Director last month, so let me start by asking you the same question I asked the FBI Director. 

Do you know of anyone in this country, Democrat or Republican, 

in government or on the outside, who has argued that the U.S. 

Government should not wiretap suspected terrorists? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sure. I mean, if you look on the 

blogs today there are all kinds of people who have very strong 

views about the ability of the government to surveille anyone, for 

any reason. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Do you know of anybody in government that 

has said that? 

Attorney General GONZALES. No. But that is not what I said. I 

have my remarks in front of me. I began by talking about how limited this program is, and what care we took in implementing this 

program. Then I did say, some people would argue nothing could 

justify the government being able to intercept conversations like 

the ones the program targets. 

I also said, instead of seeing the government protecting the country, they see it as on the verge of stifling freedom. I then said that 

this view is short-sighted if the definition of freedom, one utterly 

33

divorced from civic responsibility, is superficial and is itself a serious threat to the liberty and security of the American people. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, that is interesting because we got a 

very different answer from the Director of the FBI, who had no 

trouble saying he did not know of anyone that took that position. 

Now, this actually was not an isolated remark. During the campaign last year the President repeatedly said that the Democrats 

opposed wiretapping terrorists. Let me read you a quote from a 

campaign rally in Indiana: ‘‘When it comes to listening in on the 

terrorists, what is the Democrats’ answer? Just say no.’’

In your speech on November 20, you said that critics of the program have a definition of freedom that is ‘‘utterly divorced from 

civic responsibility,’’ and ‘‘is itself a grave threat to the liberty and 

security of the American people.’’

Mr. Attorney General, as I said when Director Mueller was here, 

to me these comments are blatantly false. I think they do a disservice to the Office of the Attorney General. Falsely accusing the 

majority of this committee of opposing the wiretapping of terrorists 

is not going to be helpful to you, to the Justice Department, to Congress, or to the American people. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I did not have you or this 

committee in mind when I made those comments. I went on to talk 

about Justice Jackson’s remarks in the case of Terminello v. City 

of Chicago, where he said, ‘‘The choice is not between order and liberty, it is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. 

There is danger that if the court is not temperate, is not chronologic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.’’ But again, I did not have 

in mind either you or this committee. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, that is nice that it was not in your 

mind, and maybe it was not in the President’s mind. But no reasonable person could interpret, during a political campaign that 

has to do with whether Senators, Democrats or Republicans, are 

elected or not elected has anything other than to do with accusing 

those who are on this committee, and others, of having that mindset. 

So I am pleased to hear you did not have that in mind. Let me 

just say that the notion that somehow any of us or any one in the 

Democratic party does not think we should wiretap terrorists, is 

simply wrong. 

Let me turn to the FISA statement itself. Why did you decide to 

seek FISA court authorization in the spring of 2005 and not earlier? Did this relate in any way to the administration learning that 

the New York Times was looking into the program? 

Attorney General GONZALES. No, not at all. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Why did you not seek the authorization earlier? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, we certainly would not 

have been prepared or be in a position to make any kind of application. I must tell you, and I want to go back and think about this 

in terms of, I am fairly certain—but again, I am under oath so I 

want to be careful how I say this—that we have had from time to 

time, when I was in the White House, discussions and thoughts 

about, is there any way to get this under FISA, not because there 

34

was any concern that what the President was doing was unlawful. 

Quite the contrary. We believed, and believe today, that what the 

President is doing is lawful. 

But because of the discourse, the concerns raised, questions 

asked here in this committee, we felt an obligation to see, was 

there a way to get this under FISA without jeopardizing the national security of this country? 

Certainly when I came over to the Department of Justice I talked 

our folks, all right, let us go back and look at this again. Let us 

start over if we are going to have to. Is there a way we can do this? 

Again, I must take issue with Senator Specter. This is a very complicated application. In many ways it is innovative in terms of the 

orders granted by the judge. It is not the kind of thing you just pull 

off the shelf. We worked on it a long time. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. Then once you submitted it, why 

did it take 2 years for the FISA court to come to its decision? 

Attorney General GONZALES. It did not take 2 years, Senator, for 

the FISA court to come to its decision. It took us a period of time 

to develop what we thought would be an acceptable legal argument 

that would be acceptable by the FISA court, and it took us a period 

of time to take that argument and fit it into the operational capabilities and possibilities of NSA. 

Senator FEINGOLD. How long did it actually take the court once 

it had your proposal? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, again, I do not want to get 

into a public discussion about the deliberations and work of the 

court. I will say that it took longer than a normal FISA because 

this was different than a normal FISA application. 

So obviously the judge, looking at this, he was very, very careful 

in his decision that the application satisfied all the requirements 

of FISA, so it took a longer period of time because it was a different 

type of application. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I see my time is up, but 

let me just say in conclusion that, while there will be matters to 

pursue both here and on the Intelligence Committee about the decision, it is an important moment in the history of our Constitution 

that this program has now been terminated and is now within the 

FISA statute. I do hope that we recognize the importance of that 

in terms of our constitutional history. Thank you, Mr. Attorney 

General. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Can I make one final point? 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course. 

Attorney General GONZALES. On your characterization that the 

program was terminated, the country is no less safe today. I mean, 

the fact that there will be electronic surveillance of the enemy during a time of war will continue. The country will not be any less 

safe. It will be conducted under the FISA court. 

I do not want the American people to think that somehow the 

President has backed off in any way from his commitment to doing 

what he can do under the law to protect America. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Which is exactly why we did not need the 

TSP outside of FISA in the first place. 

35

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, you would be a much better lawyer than any of the lawyers at the Department of Justice 

by simply looking at the statute, knowing what we do, that this is 

something that could easily be approved by the FISA court. It took 

us a period of time to work on it, to develop the legal strategy, the 

legal analysis, and it took some time for a judge to get comfortable. 

It was not easy. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. General, I recognize that. But the idea 

that you did it before you had the court’s approval is the startling 

part. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. We will take no more than a five- minute 

break and then we will come back. Senator Grassley is going to be 

next. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m. the hearing was recessed and resumed back on the record at 11:35 a.m.] 

Chairman LEAHY. As we reconvene, I will go over the order, because Senator Grassley was one of the first ones here, but he has 

also had, I would note, a very busy time in Finance this morning. 

Senator Schumer will go next, and he has also been trying to 

cover about four other things today. And then Senator Sessions, 

each one of you have been doing the same thing. But let us go 

through those, and, Senator Grassley, the floor is yours. 

Senator GRASSLEY. General Gonzales, I gave you a copy of my 

questions because I wanted to go through all the justification for 

the questions before you answered them, so I hope you have this 

sheet here. 

The first one deals with the anthrax investigation. I wrote you 

in October to ask a series of questions regarding the FBI’s investigation of the anthrax attacks. It has been over 5 years without 

any sign of real progress. It has been over 3 years since the FBI 

briefed any Congressman. 

The FBI recently announced a policy of refusing to brief Congress 

about the case even though it provided briefings earlier in the investigation. And while I was at Finance, I know that you have offered to brief Chairman Leahy. And I say this only after I made 

a great objection to the FBI on the no-briefing policy. 

In December, 33 Senators and Congressmen wrote to you to ask 

that you direct the FBI to provide a comprehensive briefing. That 

letter included signatures from several members of this Committee, 

the Intelligence Committee, Homeland Security, and not just the 

Chairs and Ranking Members. We have not received a response to 

that letter. 

The Department’s policy is unacceptable. It is kind of like thumbing the nose at congressional oversight, especially a topic that is as 

important as this one, and especially since Congress was the target 

of these attacks. Steven Hatfill, who was publicly labeled a person 

of interest in the investigation, has alleged in his lawsuit that the 

FBI and the Department of Justice personnel leaked sensitive case 

information about him to make the public believe that he was 

about to be arrested when, in fact, he was not. 

It has been reported that two FBI agents were the sources of 

leaks about Hatfill in the New York Times, but when I asked DiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jun 07, 2007 Jkt 035728 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35728.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
36

rector Mueller last month whether anyone had been disciplined, he 

said no. 

I believe that independent oversight is necessary to get to the 

bottom of these issues. You have said that you respect congressional oversight, but I do not see that your actions fit the words. 

So that is my first question. Now I want to go on to DOJ oversight 

before you answer. 

Second, I understand that the Justice Department is conducting 

a series of training events for other agencies on how to respond to 

congressional oversight inquiries and hearings. I recently wrote to 

you asking for information about these training events, including 

a list of the agencies participating and copies of materials. 

I asked to receive that information before this hearing so we 

could discuss it in more detail, but I did not get a reply. In light 

of the unnecessary hurdles and roadblocks that the Department 

has put in my way on oversight issues, my concern is that these 

training events may become lessons to stiff-arm Congress. So two 

questions on that. 

And then my last issue is the False Claims Act. Third, as author 

of the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act, I worked hard 

to ensure that we would have an effective tool against fraud and 

waste. Your Department reported that $18 billion has been recovered under my whistleblower amendments to the False Claims Act 

in the 20 years since they were passed. 

In fact, $3.1 billion was recovered in the last fiscal year 2007, 

nearly $1 billion more than any other previous years’ recovery. Can 

you tell us what the Department has been doing to increase recoveries? 

Also, Congress passed the Deficit Reduction Act. Section 6032 of 

that provided financial incentives to the States to pass their own 

False Claims Act. It requires the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services, in consultation with you, the 

Attorney General, to determine if a State law complies. 

Back in March and April, I wrote two letters to you and Inspector General Levinson outlining the requirements of Section 6032 

and highlighting necessary requirements for a State False Claims 

Act. Inspector General Levinson replied back in May that his office 

was working on guidance to States in consultation with your Department. 

The formal guidance to States was issued this past August, and 

the OIG recently released its initial determination to various 

States that were submitted in accordance with Section 6032. 

Of the 10 States that submitted the State False Claims Act, only 

three were deemed compliant. The fact that only three of ten 

passed muster tells me that there were some State legislatures 

looking to pass these laws in the next few months. 

My question is then, since you did not provide a written response, what is the Department doing, in consultation with the 

OIG of HHS to review and comment on legislation submitted to the 

States? 

So would you answer that series of questions on those three different points as I submitted them to you there in writing? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I will do my best, Senator. 

37

With respect to anthrax, you are correct, we have offered up a 

briefing to the Chairman. There is, of course—here is my view 

about oversight. I recognize that there is an institutional interest 

in the legislative branch receiving information. 

Quite frankly, when you do that, it helps us do our job better. 

I recognize that. There is also an international interest in protecting certain kinds of information within the executive branch. I 

think we each have an obligation to recognize those two competing 

institutional interests. 

As I read the case law, I think we each have an obligation to try 

to accommodate those competing interests, and so it is not enough 

for me to simply say no to a request from Congress. I do not think 

it is legitimate for Congress to simply say, ‘‘This is what I want 

and I am going to get it.’’ I think we have an obligation to try to 

reach an accommodation in most kinds of cases. 

Now, open investigations presents a unique set of challenges for 

us. The truth of the matter is my experience has been that when 

Congress inquires into open investigations, people quit providing 

candid advice. Sometimes people make decisions that they would 

not normally make for fear that if Congress is investigating what 

they are currently doing, they do not want to be criticized for not 

being tough enough. 

I also, of course, worry about the privacy interests of the individual being investigated. Oftentimes we do investigations. That 

does not mean that someone has done anything criminal. We are 

in the process of gathering up information to see whether or not 

something has happened that is criminal. 

So we are very, very careful and concerned about inadvertent 

leaks. I am not suggesting that there are intentional leaks, but 

sometimes there are inadvertent disclosures that hurt the privacy 

interests of individuals that ultimately turn out to be innocent. It 

is for that reason, that as a long matter of practice, we do try to 

resist inquiries into open investigations. 

The situation with the anthrax case is different. It is different in 

terms of—I think it is—I would characterize it as a variance based 

upon extraordinary circumstances. In this case, it was letter targeted to Senator Leahy. 

He has received briefings in the past, and for that reason, the Director of the FBI has offered and we are prepared to provide additional information that we can to the Chairman. So that is my response to the anthrax investigation. 

With respect to DOJ oversight training, quite frankly, it is a responsibility and role by statute and by regulation for the Department to provide legal advice to the other executive branch agencies. 

We want to provide guidance to ensure actually greater cooperation 

and consultation with the legislative branch in this process. 

I am told we never got your letter with respect to DOJ oversight 

training. I do not know if that is a problem with your staff or a 

problem with my staff, but I want to get to the bottom of it. 

With respect to does the Department have plans to invite any 

congressional oversight experts to provide a legislative branch perspective at these training sessions, quite frankly, that is up to each 

agency. But we are their counsel as the Department, but they are 

obviously free to seek input from congressional experts. 

38

Again, this is not a coordinated effort to try to coach them about 

how to avoid answering questions. It is to make sure that we are 

providing the appropriate level of cooperation, because we do have 

an obligation, again, based upon the case law as I read it and 

based upon tradition and history, to try to accommodate competing 

legitimate interests. 

False Claims Act questions. Can you tell us what the Department has been doing to increase False Claims Act recoveries? I 

think our record in this area is very, very good if you look at the 

number of dollars that have been recovered. 

I know there have been some complaints, Senator, that perhaps 

we are taking too long in making the decisions to get involved in 

some of these kinds of cases. But we take them very, very seriously, and we want to be very, very careful in the decisions that 

we make to be involved. But we are fully committed to this, and 

I think that is evidenced by the record level of recoveries with respect to these kinds of claims. 

Then your question, Since you did not provide a written response 

either to my March 2006 letter or April 2006 letter—which I am 

told, again, we never got, and that is something we need to correct—what is DOJ doing, in consultation with HHS OIG, to review 

and comment on FCA legislation? I am told the letter has gone up 

to you, and you should have that. Quite frankly, sir, I do not know 

what the letter says. I have not reviewed it. But I am told that 

there has been some kind of response to you. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be involved in 

that briefing that you have on anthrax, if I could be. 

Chairman LEAHY. Senator, I found the last briefing to be so inadequate and so uninformative, I have not sought another one because I have learned more reading the papers, especially when I 

read in the paper that the Department of Justice brought a number 

of victims of the anthrax attacks or their families to Washington 

to brief them. I do not want to use the mantle of ‘‘victim,’’ but insofar as I was a target, I guess targets were not invited, victims 

were. 

Be that as it may, if we have a briefing, as I said earlier, I would 

certainly want at the very least the Ranking Member involved. It 

should not be just a member of one party. But we can work that 

out. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Mr. Chairman, I have encouraged 

the Director to try to provide as much information as we can. I 

would also conclude that I want to thank Senator Grassley for his 

amendment to increase DOJ’s HIPAA funding by providing an inflationary adjustment to help investigate health care fraud. Thank 

you, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator Schumer is next. Go ahead. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Mr. Attorney General. 

Now, as has been mentioned, we learned yesterday that after 

more than 5 years of warrantless wiretapping, you finally obtained 

an order from the FISA Court. It is a secret Court, to be sure, but 

it is a Court nonetheless. And while many are rightly relieved that 

you finally decided to seek the involvement of a court, there are 

39

still far too many unanswered questions to say that this issue has 

been resolved. This is better than Cheney, but we still do not know 

what ‘‘this’’ is. 

So, first, let me ask you this: Do you now believe that FISA 

Court approval is legally required for such wiretapping? Or do you 

continue to believe that Court approval is merely voluntary? You 

indicated the latter before. If that is the case, is it not true that 

you could turn this on and off at will? If in a month the FISA 

Court did not do what you wanted, you could go right back to the 

old system? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, we commenced down this 

road 5 years ago because of a belief that we could not do what we 

felt was necessary to protect this country under FISA. That is why 

the President relied upon his inherent authority under the Constitution. 

My own judgment is that the President has shown maturity and 

wisdom here in this particular decision. He recognizes that there 

is a reservoir of inherent power that belongs to every President. 

You use it only when you have to. In this case you do not have to. 

Senator SCHUMER. So you do not think you are legally required 

to go to the FISA Court? That is correct, correct? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator—

Senator SCHUMER. Please answer yes or no. 

Attorney General GONZALES. We still—we believe—my belief is 

that the actions taken by the administration, by this President, 

were lawful in the past. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. 

Attorney General GONZALES. But moving forward, our electronic 

surveillance collection is going to be conducted under FISA. 

Senator SCHUMER. All I would submit here, sir, is that at will, 

just as at will you instituted this program, since you do not believe 

you are legally bound, you could turn it off, particularly if you got 

a decision that you did not want. That is one question I have. 

Now, let me ask some questions about the nature of the Court 

approval. Yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Bradbury refused 

to answer whether this new program constitutes a program warrant. We need to get some information on this. Now, they did use 

the word plural, so I assume it is more than one warrant. But are 

we—

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator—

Senator SCHUMER. In other words, are the new FISA orders directed at individuals, at entire groups of individuals, or even broader brush than that? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I am not at liberty to talk 

about those kinds of specifics because it would require me to get 

into operational details that I think I should not do in open session. 

Senator SCHUMER. I will not ask you to get into operational details. I would like to know if there is an intention to do this on an 

individual basis or at least on a case-by-case basis where 5, 6, 10, 

20, 100 individuals are involved, or is it broader brush than that? 

Because if it is a very broad brush approval—and, again, because 

it is secret, we have no way of knowing—it does not do much good. 

Your answering that question in no way compromises any security 

interest. None. All it is, is a general outline of what you have done. 

40

It is no more than what Bradbury talked about yesterday. So could 

you give us some idea of the breadth of these warrants? 

Attorney General GONZALES. What I can tell you, Senator, is that 

they meet the legal requirements under FISA. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I will also tell you, Senator, that 

the entirety of the Intel Committees, both in the House and Senate, 

have received full briefings about these orders and our application. 

We have provided a full briefing to Senator Specter. 

We have offered a full briefing to the Chairman. And we are prepared to answer the questions that we need to ensure that they are 

comfortable about the application and the order. 

Senator SCHUMER. But at least according to the paper, Senator 

Rockefeller did not get answers to these types of questions at his 

briefing. He said there are still too many unanswered questions 

about the kind—he did not say specifically about the kind I am 

asking. 

And in your letter, here is what you say: ‘‘I am writing to inform 

you that on January 10th,’’ a judge of the FISA Court issued orders 

authorizing the Government to target ‘‘for collection international 

communications into or out of the United States where there is 

probable cause to believe that one of the communicants is a member or an agent of al Qaeda or an associated terrorist organization.’’

That clearly sounds to me like a program warrant, not an individual warrant. Is that not a program warrant? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I do not know what you 

are reading from or what is said in the paper. And I must tell you, 

I am surprised if, in fact, Senator Rockefeller said—

Senator SCHUMER. This is in your letter. You signed this letter. 

Attorney General GONZALES. If, in fact, Senator Rockefeller said 

that he does not understand the program. I view our briefings as 

the initial starting point of our discussions. If people do not understand, all they have to do is ask questions. It is important from our 

perspective for the Congress to understand what we are doing here 

with respect to these FISA applications. And so—

Senator SCHUMER. Heather Wilson, a Republican on the Intelligence Committee, says they are program warrants. I think we 

have to assume these are broad program warrants barring some 

comment from you, which I think is perfectly acceptable and that, 

you know, the reason you might not want to state it is it would 

open you up to criticism. And if it is a broad program warrant, it 

really is not very satisfying in terms of protection that the Constitution requires. 

Again, can you tell us that these will be—can you give us some 

assurance that there will be some degree of specificity in these 

warrants? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, what I can tell you is that, 

again, these meet all the requirements of the FISA statute. They 

also include minimization procedures above and beyond what we 

would normally find in a FISA order to ensure that any information that should not be collected is disposed of in the appropriate 

way. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. Next question. Getting some of the details here, the previous program has been going on for 5 years. 

41

That is longer than it took us to fight World War II. Your negotiations, by your own admission, have gone on 2 years. That is longer 

than this administration took to conceive a plan to invade Iraq—

mobilize the troops, invade Iraq, and topple Saddam Hussein. 

Can you give us some documentation, whether it is in camera or 

publicly, about why the negotiations took so long, what the change 

in heart was in the administration? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I think as we have these additional 

briefings and there is a better understanding of how the application is structured and how the orders work, I think people have a 

better understanding of why it took so long to get this done. 

Senator SCHUMER. There is a fundamental question a lot of people are asking, sir, and, that is, if FISA was always sufficient to 

facilitate this program, why did you not use it in the first place? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, we did not know that FISA was 

sufficient until the very moment that the judge approved the order. 

As I have said several times—

Senator SCHUMER. It took 5 years for that to happen? 

Attorney General GONZALES. As I have said several times, we 

started down this road, the administration started down this road 

just months after the attacks of September 11th because we did not 

believe that FISA was available to allow the United States to engage in this kind of foreign collection in a manner that would protect the national security of our country. 

Senator SCHUMER. Let me ask you a question. Did you negotiate 

with the FISA judges or did you just propose something at once, 

they looked at it, and came back to you? Or was there a lot of give 

and take and back and forth? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I am not going to get into 

a discussion about our interaction with the Court on this order, as 

I would not on any other order. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, let me just say this because, again, you 

have received some plaudits here, and I am glad—as I said, this 

is better than what we had. But I for one cannot feel very relieved 

knowing that the administration’s view is they can go back and reinstitute the old program on a whim, that we do not know what 

type of warrants are being approved by the FISA Court—is it two? 

Is it 10? Is it 20?—and whether it is individual; and, third, we do 

not know what brought this all about, how long the negotiations 

took, the way it came about, et cetera. 

Remember, the FISA Court is a secret Court. The FISA Court 

has no Supreme Court review. Now, that is not your doing. That 

is established by statute. But that seems to me, if there were a new 

spirit of cooperation and understanding of the checks and balances, 

and balances of power, that, sir, you would be more forthcoming to 

try and show the American people that this is a real change. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, we have provided a full 

briefing to both Intel Committees. We have already provided a 

briefing to Senator Specter, have offered a briefing to the Chairman. We are prepared to provide additional information to these 

two individuals so that they fully understand how these orders 

work. 

Senator SCHUMER. The number of people who have received the 

briefings are not very satisfied. That is what I was saying. Heather 

42

Wilson, a Republican, and Senator Rockefeller, by his quotes in the 

New York times, are not very satisfied. 

So for you to come tell us and tell us we cannot give you or the 

American people, more to the point, a briefing that does not involve 

secured information and we briefed these other people, and then 

when we hear from them they still have a whole lot of un answered 

questions, it is not very satisfying. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, if a Member of Congress is not 

satisfied, they ought to tell us that, and we will provide additional 

information and try to educate them about this very difficult application and order so that they fully understand how it works. 

Senator SCHUMER. I am telling you—

Attorney General GONZALES. We are committed to do that. 

Senator SCHUMER. I am telling you that I am not satisfied and 

would like to receive more information, either in camera or publicly. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I would note that Senator Specter and I 

have written to the chief judge of the FISA Court asking for copies 

of the decisions of that Court, those that were announced publicly 

on Wednesday. They are apparently willing to provide those decisions for this Committee. There was some discussion with the Attorney General, who did seem overly approving of that idea or unwilling to commit to approve the idea. Be that as it may, this Committee will seek them. 

I want to clear up a couple misperceptions. Talking about taking 

several years to work out something with FISA as though this was 

a big roadblock. This Congress, and this Committee especially, has 

amended FISA a number of times since 9/11 at the request of the 

administration. There has never been a difficulty in getting that 

done. 

Also, there seems to be a misperception that, of course, if there 

is another terrorist attack, we would all be ready to pounce on you. 

The fact of the matter is that the first terrorist attack, 9/11, happened during the Bush administration, and Democrats and Republicans came together to try to protect this country. 

We could have just as well taken all that time to say, ‘‘How could 

you let this happen on your watch? ’’ Instead, we came together to 

say, ‘‘How do we make sure it does not happen a second time on 

the Bush administration’s watch or any other administration’s 

watch? ’’

We have amended FISA a number of times, but I would leave 

you with one thought, and we will go back to this with the Court. 

The law is the law. No matter the motivation, nobody is above the 

law, not the President, not you, not me, not anybody else. 

And we will insist that the law be followed. If the law needs 

changes, come and tell us that. But we will follow this discussion 

with the FISA Court, and we will have the briefing on it. 

But I would also say the Senator from Alabama has been waiting 

patiently all morning long, and I would now yield to him. I know 

that we have several Senators who have not had a chance to ask 

their questions, and if they are here, we will go to them following 

Senator Sessions. Otherwise, we will start our second round. 

43

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Attorney General Gonzales, for 

your leadership and your hard work to defend this country and to 

promote the rule of law, and I mean that sincerely. 

I am not surprised that when you said yes, they still are not 

happy. We have just had a professional complaint here. I would 

just note that I am of the belief that at a time in which this Congress has authorized hostile action against certain groups like al 

Qaeda, it is perfectly appropriate for the United States President 

to authorize his agents to intercept their phone calls in foreign 

lands and intercept international phone calls that may come into 

our country if one of the parties to that conversation are connected 

to an entity with which we are at war. I think we have been 

through this around and around many times. 

You have said, OK, now we will go on and in light of the complaints go through this procedure, and maybe that was a good decision. Maybe it is just throwing a little more chum in the water for 

the sharks. I do not know. But at any rate, I thank you for trying 

to work with the Congress. 

There has been some complaints about replacement of the United 

States Attorneys. I served as United States Attorney for 12 years. 

I am sure some people would have liked to have removed me before 

that. But I am well aware that the United States Attorneys serve 

as the pleasure of the President. 

The United States Attorneys that are being replaced here, as I 

understand it, all have served 4 years or more, had 4-year terms. 

And we are now in the second term of this President, and I think 

to make seven changes that I think are involved here is not that 

many, and that the office of the United States Attorney is a very 

important office, and it has tremendous management responsibilities and law enforcement responsibilities that cannot fail to meet 

standards. And if someone is not producing, I think the President 

has every right to seek a change for that or other reasons that may 

come up. I would just—

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, could I just interrupt you? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Attorney General GONZALES. There are constant changes in the 

ranks of our U.S. Attorneys. 

Senator SESSIONS. Absolutely. 

Attorney General GONZALES. They come and go, and they leave 

for a variety of reasons. And so the fact that someone is leaving—

I do not want to—again, I do not want to get into personal details 

of individual U.S. Attorneys. I do want to say, however—and I have 

said this publicly a lot recently, it seems—the U.S. Attorney positions are very, very important to me personally. 

They are my representatives in the community. They are the face 

of the administration, quite frankly. They are often viewed as the 

leader of the law enforcement effort within a community, not just 

by State and locals, but by other Federal components, and so I care 

very much about who my U.S. Attorney is in a particular district. 

That is very, very important to me. And so decisions with respect 

to U.S. Attorneys are made on what is best for the Department, but 

also what is best for the people in the respective district. 

44

Senator SESSIONS. I fully understand that, and I know in my district where I used to be United States Attorney, a vacancy occurred 

and someone left and an interim was appointed. 

She was a professional prosecutor in San Diego, Deborah Rhodes. 

She won great respect in the office and brought the office together 

when there had been problems. And I am pleased to say Senator 

Shelby and I recommended her to you and you appointed her permanently, somebody who had never lived in the district before. 

But I know you want the best type persons for those offices. I 

would just note, though, that there have been complaints about 

United States Attorneys where some of them are not very aggressive and they do not need to stay if they are not doing their job. 

Here we had 14 House Members expressing concerns about U.S. 

Attorney Carol Lam in San Diego on the border there, saying in 

effect that she had a firm policy not to prosecute criminal aliens 

unless they have previously been convicted of two felonies in the 

district. 

Well, I do not think that is justifiable. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I—

Senator SESSIONS. I do not know if that had anything to do with 

her removal, but I know there were a series of 19 House Members 

wrote letters complaining about their performance, and if that is 

so, I think change is necessary. Go ahead. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, I was going to say I am not 

going to comment on those kind of reports, quite frankly. 

Senator SESSIONS. I am sure you are not. 

Attorney General GONZALES. It is not fair to individuals. It is not 

fair to their privacy. And, quite frankly, it is not fair to others who 

may have left for different reasons. 

Senator SESSIONS. I understand. Now, the Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the Scout Program, which is with immigration, to help fund the cost of illegal criminal activity enforcement. 

This month, the DOJ Inspector General released an audit titled, 

‘‘Cooperation of Scout Recipients in the Removal of Criminal Aliens 

from the United States.’’

One of the questions that the Congress asked the Inspector General to examine was how many criminal offenses were committed 

by criminal aliens who were released from State or local custody 

without a referral for removal from the United States. 

A pretty good question. Are these people committing crimes or 

not? The report came in with a staggering result. It found, ‘‘The 

rate at which released criminal aliens are rearrested is extremely 

high.’’ Within the sample of individuals examined, 100 individuals 

examined, 73 had had at least one arrest after their release from 

State custody. 

They accounted for a total—these 73 accounted for a total of 429 

arrests, 878 charges, and 241 convictions. To put it another way, 

those 73 individuals had been arrested on an average of 5.8 times 

apiece after their initial release. 

This is clear statistical evidence, I think, that if the Department 

wants to reduce recidivism, they need to take action, and one of 

those is to remove people who are arrested and prosecute criminal 

aliens. 

45

Would you agree that that is supportive of that enforcement concept? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I think people who commit crimes 

are much more deterred from doing so again if, in fact, they are 

prosecuted and locked away. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. And with regard to the proposal that would 

change the United States Attorney appointment we discussed earlier, I think the Feinstein amendment is not just re-establishing 

previous law. It goes beyond the previous law. And I think at this 

point we do not have a basis to make that change. Would you agree 

it goes beyond the previous law? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Quite frankly, Senator, I am not 

in—I do not know what her amendment would do, but I would 

have concerns if her amendment would require or allow a judge to 

make a decision about who is going to serve on my staff. 

Senator SESSIONS. If a United States Attorney is appointed by 

the power—a U.S. Attorney is part of the executive branch. You 

would bring that nomination to the Senate for an up-or-down vote, 

would you not? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Again, I have said it before, but I 

will say it again. I am fully committed to work with the Senate to 

ensure that we have Presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed 

U.S. Attorneys in every district. 

Now, these are, of course, very, very important, and I do not 

have the luxury of letting vacancies sit vacant. And so I have an 

obligation to the people in those district to appoint interims. And, 

of course, even though there may be an interim appointment, their 

judgment, their experience or qualifications are still, nonetheless, 

very, very important to me. 

Senator SESSIONS. You are exactly right. And let me ask you, on 

the court system in Iraq, it is something I have been very concerned about. The Department of Justice has a role in that. We 

have got almost, what, 150,000 soldiers over there. I believe the 

Department of Justice has got to do more. 

I am well aware that one fine Assistant United States Attorney 

in my home district I hired, with a fine family, felt he ought to 

serve his country, and he participated in working on big trials, including Saddam Hussein’s trial in Baghdad, away from his fine 

family. 

But my experience from asking about this for a number of years 

leads me to believe every agency of Government has got to step up 

to help our military policy be successful. Will you assure us that 

you will do all you can to make sure that you are fulfilling your 

role in helping to establish a court system and a prison system that 

works in Iraq? 

Attorney General GONZALES. We can not achieve success here 

without the rule of law. I think we have done a lot, and we obviously can give you a lot of facts and figures about what we are already doing. Obviously, we need to do more. And so we are looking 

to see what else we can do. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is not an academic matter. This is life and 

death. If we cannot be assured that people who are arrested are 

not going to be released, they are not going to be tried promptly, 

46

they are not going to be incarcerated securely, that undermines the 

rule of law and can undermine our entire mission over there. 

And, finally, Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I want to thank 

you for providing technical support to a bill that Senator Biden and 

I and I think Senator Feinstein and Norm Coleman have worked 

on called the online pharmacy bill, which people are able to order 

controlled substances from and through the Internet without ever 

being physically examined by a physician. And I think that is a 

major loophole. 

People who are addicted to these prescription drugs, they are addicted as deeply as cocaine. And they get obsessed with getting 

them. They go around town buying them from multiple doctors. 

Frequently, they are apprehended when they do that. But if they 

can just buy large numbers without every seeing a physician 

through on-line pharmacies, then we have got a big loophole. 

Thank you. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Thank you. I appreciate your leadership on that, Senator. We look forward to working with you. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Then-Congressman Ben Cardin 

served with great distinction in the House of Representatives for 

years as a Representative from Maryland. He is now here as a new 

Senator from Maryland, and I want to welcome him to this Committee. I usually have a better voice than this. It is the Attorney 

General who should be without a voice at this point, not me. But 

I now yield to Senator Cardin of Maryland. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Leahy, thank you very much for your 

kind comments, and thank you for your leadership on this Committee; and, Senator Specter, it is a pleasure to be on the Judiciary 

Committee. 

Mr. Gonzales, I want to use my time to talk about the Voting 

Rights Act and the concerns about voter intimidation and the deceptive practices particularly against minority communities. And I 

would like to explore the energy of your Department in pursuing 

these issues. 

There have been many reports nationally of problems. Problems 

concerning voting machines, we know about that. We have heard 

and seen instructions given by major political parties to the poll 

watchers to discriminately challenge certain voters in order to try 

to intimidate a vote. 

We have seen material that has been given out that has been 

misleading as to the day of an election or as to responsibility for 

being arrested if you have outstanding parking violations, clearly 

targeted to particular communities. 

But I am going to mention two specific things that happened in 

Maryland in this past campaign that have been brought to your attention—at least one has been brought to your attention through 

Senator Schumer. But I want to get your comments on it and try 

to explore a little bit further what is being done by your agency. 

In Prince George’s County and Baltimore City, the two jurisdictions in Maryland that have predominantly African-American voters and citizens, there were long lines on election day to vote. The 

reasons for these long lines were inadequate equipment, improper 

training for the supervisors, and a whole host of reasons. 

47

I personally visited polling places in Prince George’s County and 

in Baltimore City where, during the low peak, low times in voting, 

voters had to wait 2 hours in order to vote. And it was not unusual 

for someone to wait 3 hours in order to vote in these two counties. 

We did not have similar problems in other counties in Maryland, 

raising a serious question as to whether those that are responsible 

for managing our voting system were really sincere in trying to get 

the maximum amount of participation on November the 7th. 

The second specific issue that I want to bring to your attention 

that I am personally aware of is literature that was given out on 

the eve of the election, and we will make sure you get a copy of 

it. And, Mr. Chairman, I would like a copy placed in our record, 

if that would be agreeable. 

Chairman LEAHY. Without objection, it will be so ordered. 

Senator CARDIN. The literature is under the authority of a major 

candidate running for Governor and a major candidate running for 

U.S. Senate in our State. It is labeled ‘‘Ehrlich-Steele Democrats.’’ 

And as I am certain you are aware, Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Steele are 

Republicans, and the ‘‘Official Voter’s Guide,’’ has the photographs 

of three prominent African-Americans in our State. 

‘‘These are our choices,’’ the Guide says, giving the clear impression that these three individuals have endorsed the candidacy of 

those that are on this literature. Two of the people in this literature, Kweisi Mfume, the former head of the NAACP, endorsed 

my candidacy and not Mr. Steele’s candidacy for the United States 

Senate; Jack Johnson, the county executive for Prince George’s 

County, endorsed my candidacy, certainly not Mr. Steele’s candidacy. 

The literature goes on and gives a Democratic sample ballot with 

all the Democrats listed, except for Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Steele, 

under the authority of Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Steele, clearly misleading voters. 

To compound this, there were hundreds of individuals from 

Pennsylvania who were in homeless shelters who were bused into 

Maryland by Mr. Ehrlich and Mr. Steele to give out this literature. 

I talked to these individuals. They had no idea what they were 

doing. They just thought they were picking up a job and were surprised to find out what they were actually being bused to Baltimore 

and to Prince George’s County to do. 

This troubles me. I think there is a limit as to what you can do, 

and it seems to me that there has been a pattern, at least in my 

State, to try to diminish the voting of minorities. And I know that 

Senator Schumer sent you a letter, and I have been informed that 

you have responded to that letter although I have not seen that response. But I want to get your views here today as to what you 

have done to look into these matters. 

I must tell you, in another role that I had in the other body, I 

was the Democratic leader on the Helsinki Commission, the Commission for Security and Cooperation in Europe, and we monitored 

elections around Europe and Central Asia. 

And I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, there are practices that 

occur here in America that we would not tolerate in other countries. And I look to you, as the principal leader to make sure that 

48

our justice system is available to all through empowerment and 

voting, through the Voting Rights Act. 

And I would just like to know what resources you are devoting 

to make sure that this Nation encourages all of its citizens to vote 

and that we act against any effort to deny participation, particularly among minorities in America. 

Attorney General GONZALES. First of all, Senator, let me also extend my welcome. This is the first time you and I have spoken, I 

think, and I look forward to working with you. 

Voting is very, very important to me. The protection of the franchise is very, very important to me, because I come from a background where I did not have much, perhaps like you. And on voting, however, you are equal to everyone else, and that is a right 

that is so precious in our country. 

And so I agree with you that it is something that we should 

guard zealously and ensure that we are doing what we can to ensure that everyone has a right to exercise their franchise on election day. 

Having said that, I will say that, as we all know, elections are 

primarily a State and local function. They are not primarily a Federal function. They are run, conducted by State and local officials. 

Senator CARDIN. The Voting Rights Act is a Federal law. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Pardon me? 

Senator CARDIN. The Voting Rights Act. 

Attorney General GONZALES. No question about it. Obviously, we 

have the Civil Rights Division and we have the Criminal Division. 

The Civil Rights Division is there to ensure that no one is intimidated or discriminated against in the exercise of voting based upon 

their race or color. The Criminal Division is there to ensure ballot 

integrity, to ensure that there is no voter fraud. 

I have spoken with Wan Kim certainly about the flyer. They 

have looked at it very, very carefully—Wan Kim being head of the 

Civil Rights Division—and I think the general notion is that, unfortunately, as a general matter, our Federal laws are not—I do not 

want to say they are really intended to, but they do not provide 

much in terms of tools in terms of going after campaign tactics or 

rhetoric by candidates. And you have to ask yourself, I mean, is 

that really what you want prosecutors to do in connection with 

campaigns. 

Senator CARDIN. What I want prosecutors to do is look for a pattern of conduct. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Exactly. 

Senator CARDIN. And if this was the only thing that happened 

in Maryland—I think it is wrong. I think you should look at it. I 

think it is reprehensible. But if there is an effort made to deny minorities full participation in the State of Maryland, you have a responsibility to do something about that. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I do have a responsibility, and I believe I am discharging that responsibility. Wan Kim and I have 

talked about this several times. He understands my commitment to 

this issue and how important it is for the Department of Justice 

to ensure that people are not discriminated against based upon 

their race or color in terms of exercising their right to vote. 

49

And I think we have a strong record in terms of civil rights enforcement, and when these kinds of allegations are made, we, of 

course, investigate. If we can prosecute a case, we will do so. 

In some cases, States have laws where this kind of conduct could 

be prosecuted. I do not know what exists in Maryland, but that 

would be something we would always do as well, is consult with 

our State counterparts to see whether or not, if we cannot prosecute, is there some law, some State law that it can be prosecuted. 

So, I mean, you have my commitment—and I am happy to sit 

down and talk with you further about these cases and others in 

your State. I can tell this is something that is very, very important 

to you. It is important to me. And it seems to me this is something 

we could be allies on. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I appreciate that. This is important to the 

people of Maryland and important to the people of our country. I 

am not as concerned about getting people prosecuted as I am to 

make sure people have the right to vote and it is not infringed. 

And I think the activism of your Department could go a long way 

to show that we have a concern at the national level with the Voting Rights Act that all people have the right to participate and any 

form of intimidation will not be tolerated, particularly when there 

has been a pattern to try as part of a campaign strategy to reduce 

the participation of minority voters. That is what happened in our 

State, and I look forward to your invitation, and I plan to take you 

up on that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Cardin.

What I will do is begin the second round, and my intention would 

be, after Senator Specter and I have finished, and for the notice of 

other Senators, we will then recess until quarter of 2. That will 

allow the Attorney General time to actually get a bite to eat, but 

also, I am sure, if he is like all the rest of us, he probably has a 

hundred phone calls backed up in his office. 

Senator Specter? 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The subject of local law enforcement is one which you have addressed, Mr. Attorney General, and I would like to pursue the issue 

with reference to my State. The city of Philadelphia has had more 

than 400 homicides last year, and the city of Reading was ranked 

as the 21st most dangerous cities in the country. And you have an 

excellent United States Attorney’s Office covering that jurisdiction, 

U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan is there. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, sir. 

Senator SPECTER. He had been my chief of staff in Philadelphia 

and was district attorney of Delaware County and has done an outstanding job for you. His office received three awards for their work 

in prosecuting a major drug organization last year, and he needs 

help. I know your budgetary limitations have caused some reductions in staff there. 

In taking a look at the situation—and I have seen it for many 

years since my days as district attorney of Philadelphia—it has 

been my thought that mentoring might provide the best short-term 

assistance to eliminate the killings and the gang warfare. It is not 

going to be eliminated, but it can be ameliorated. 

50

Attorney General GONZALES. I could not agree with you more, 

Senator. I think you are right, absolutely right. 

Senator SPECTER. And toward that end, I have contacted Superintendent Paul Vallas, a very distinguished superintendent of 

schools, and members of the School Board, and also talked to Governor Rendell, talked to Mayor Street, District Attorney Lynne 

Abraham. 

Both Governor Rendell and D.A. Lynne Abraham were assistants 

in my office. I have worked with them over the years. And I discussed with the Mayor convening a meeting, which we are having 

in Philadelphia tomorrow, to pool together the mentoring resources 

to see how much we have and to make a plea to the citizens of 

Philadelphia to come forward and volunteer to be mentors. 

I think if the Governor, the Mayor, and the D.A., public officials 

and I join together, we can get a response. And what I would like 

to do with you, Mr. Attorney General, is have our staffs meet and 

go over the resources which you see available on mentoring and 

then pick it up in the Department of Justice budget and in the 

budget of education and health care, which would have overlapping 

interests. And I know that you share the deep concern, and let us 

work together on it. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I am sure you know, of course, that we have $2.5 million committed to the 222 Corridor, 

which really is a part within, to focus on gangs. They have submitted a plan that has three pillars—one being prevention, one 

being law enforcement, and the third being prison re-entry. 

And so obviously the prevention piece would include education 

and would include mentoring. And so there is already, I think, 

some good work being done within the 222 Corridor. But I would 

look forward to working with you because I think, quite frankly, by 

the time they get into gangs, it is tough to get it reversed. We need 

to get to these kids before they join gangs. 

Senator SPECTER. Mr. Attorney General, let me return to a couple of subjects we talked about this morning and see if we can not 

come to a meeting of the minds. 

On the signing statements, let me illustrate the issue with the 

PATRIOT Act. You and I personally worked on the PATRIOT Act, 

as did our staffs, and we gave law enforcement additional powers. 

Now, in return, we took additional safeguards on oversight. But 

when the President signed the PATRIOT Act, he reserved what he 

calls his right to disregard those oversight provisions. 

Now, in the context where the Chairman of the Committee and 

the Attorney General negotiate an arrangement, is it appropriate 

for the President to put in a signing statement which negates the 

oversight which had been bargained for, which has been bargained 

for? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I would just say that, you 

know, a signing statement cannot give to the President any authority that he does not already have under the Constitution. 

And so to the extent that the President makes that kind of statement and informs the Congress and the American people about his 

interpretation, I would view that as a good thing. But there is no 

additional—he has that authority already. He does not need to 

say—

51

Senator SPECTER. But if he thinks those provisions derogate, inappropriately take away his constitutional authority and the act is 

unconstitutional, then he ought to veto it. 

Attorney General GONZALES. But, Senator, I think—

Senator SPECTER. Or at least he ought not to bargain it away. 

Attorney General GONZALES. There may be a feeling that, of 

course, the act may be totally constitutional depending on its application, and the President wants to ensure that—he wants to give 

direction to the executive branch as to what he thinks would be a 

constitutional application. 

And, of course, quite frankly, the President, knowing how much 

work is involved in getting legislation passed, particularly pieces of 

legislation like the reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, I mean, 

the last thing he wants to do is veto all that hard work if he does 

not need to. And, you know, Presidents of both parties have taken 

this approach. 

Senator SPECTER. And then let him tell us in the negotiations 

that he is not going to agree to the oversight, and then we can decide whether to give him more power. He cannot get the power unless Congress gives it to him. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I do not know—

Senator SPECTER. He does not have inherent constitutional authority to take power that is not granted by Congress. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Unless it is granted by the Constitution. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, if he wants specific law enforcement authority, there has to be an express grant by Congress. 

Let me pick up one other subject, if I may, Mr. Chairman. I may 

go a little over time, which I do not like to do, but let me take up 

this habeas corpus issue very briefly. 

Where you have the Constitution having an explicit provision 

that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be suspended except in cases 

of rebellion or invasion, and you have the Supreme Court saying 

that habeas corpus rights apply to Guantanamo detainees, aliens 

in Guantanamo, after an elaborate discussion as to why, how can 

there be a statutory taking of habeas corpus when there is an express constitutional provision that it cannot be suspended and an 

explicit Supreme Court holding that it applies to Guantanamo 

alien detainees? 

Attorney General GONZALES. A couple of things, Senator. I believe that the Supreme Court case you are referring to dealt only 

with the statutory right to habeas, not the constitutional right to 

habeas. 

Senator SPECTER. Well, you are not right about that. It is plain 

on its face they are talking about the constitutional right to habeas 

corpus. They talk about habeas corpus being guaranteed by the 

Constitution except in cases of an invasion or rebellion. And they 

talk about John at Runnymede and the Magna Carta and the doctrine being embedded in the Constitution. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, the fact that they may have 

talked about the constitutional right to habeas does not mean that 

the decision dealt with the constitutional right to habeas. 

Senator SPECTER. When did you last read the case? 

52

Attorney General GONZALES. It has been a while, but I would be 

happy to go back—I will go back and look at it. 

Senator SPECTER. I looked at it yesterday and this morning 

again. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I will go back and look at it. The 

fact that the Constitution—again, there is no express grant of habeas in the Constitution. There is a prohibition against taking it 

away. But it has never been the case—I am not aware of a Supreme—

Senator SPECTER. Now, wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you cannot take it away except in case of rebellion 

or invasion. Does that not mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless there is an invasion or rebellion? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I meant by that comment the Constitution does not say every individual in the United States or 

every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right to habeas. It 

does not say that. It simply says the right of habeas corpus shall 

not be suspended except by—

Senator SPECTER. You may be treading on your interdiction and 

violating common sense, Mr. Attorney General. 

Chairman LEAHY. Mr. Attorney General, just so that—I want to 

make one thing very clear on this habeas corpus. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, your mike. I cannot hear you. 

Chairman LEAHY. I want to make one thing very clear on the habeas corpus, and we can go back and forth on what the case held 

or anything else. I feel that the Congress of the United States and 

the administration made a horrible mistake last year in a very 

short period of time and debate, basically undercut the writ of habeas corpus, the Great Writ. There are those who talked about 9/

11 and why they were doing it. I talked about the year 1215, I believe it was, when it first came into our concept. But the great writ 

of habeas corpus was done horrible damage by the Congress in a 

law the President signed last year. 

I just want to put everybody on notice that as Chairman of this 

Committee, I will do everything possible to restore all the rights 

under the writ of habeas corpus that were there before we passed 

the legislation we did, legislation I voted against. I will make every 

effort to restore it. I just want everybody to know that. 

Now, I would like to have allies in that, but I will try to do it 

no matter what. 

On the question of signing statements, you said that a signing 

statement cannot give a President more authority. Well, it also—

and this President has used signing statements far more than any 

other President. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, I would disagree with that. 

Probably more but not far more. 

Chairman LEAHY. We have actually done numbers on it. We have 

actually run the numbers on it, and I will put the numbers in the 

record. Certainly on the issues of constitutional issues, far more 

than anybody in the history of the ABA Task Force, so the 800 provisions of law challenged by Presidential signing statements in this 

administration, 86 percent of the President’s signing statements 

have related to constitutional challenges. You talked about President Clinton; 26 percent of his did. 

53

But the fact of the matter is while you say they cannot give him 

more power, he also has the duty under the Constitution to faithfully execute our laws. Now, it is one thing to make a big political 

thing of negotiating a piece of legislation. I will give one example. 

The President, the Vice President did that with a member of this 

body on the question of torture. Everybody went out, declared victory on that. Congress passes the bill outlawing torture. And then 

quietly, on a Friday, the White House issues a signing statement 

saying, however—and this was after a full negotiation of the law—

these parts will not apply to this President or those people acting 

under his direction. 

The chief sponsor of the legislation made a modest one-paragraph—again, on Friday afternoon, saying, gosh, that is not what 

I intended, and that was the end of it. And there have been hundreds of others. So we will look at that. 

Let me ask you, though, in a specific area. When the Congress 

reconvened this month—or convened, I should say, I reintroduced 

my war profiteering prevention bill. That is going to make it a 

crime for military contractors to overvalue goods and services with 

the specific intent to defraud the United States in connection with 

war or the reconstruction efforts in Iraq. 

Now, we spent more than half a trillion dollars in Iraq so far. 

Last week, the President said he is going to spend at least another 

$1.2 billion more on reconstruction. The Special Inspector General 

for Iraq Reconstruction says millions of U.S. taxpayer funds remain 

unaccounted for because of fraud by contractors. So let me ask you 

about the Department’s investigation on contracting fraud in Iraq. 

According to Taxpayers Against Fraud, a nonprofit watchdog 

group, there are more than 50 Iraq fraud investigations currently 

ongoing in the Government. At least five False Claims Act cases involving Iraq contracting fraud have been filed under seal. But, to 

date, the Justice Department has not brought a single criminal 

case against a corporate contractor in Iraq. Why? It appears you 

may be avoiding investigating and prosecuting fraud. Is that the 

case? Why not a single one? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, no, it is not the case. 

Chairman LEAHY. It is not the case that you have not brought 

a single criminal case against a corporate contractor in Iraq. 

Attorney General GONZALES. No. It is not the case that we are 

trying to avoid bringing these kinds of cases. These are difficult 

cases to make. In the normal case, fraud cases are difficult to 

make, and depending on the complexity and the size, it may take 

years to get them ready for trial. 

Chairman LEAHY. Would they be easier with the war profiteering 

legislation that I have submitted, something that passed the Senate overwhelmingly the last time it came up, but I understand that 

at the request of the administration was taken out by the Republicans in the House. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I do not know, Senator. I would be 

happy to look at it and let you know. But when you are talking 

about also investigations overseas, particularly in a war zone, it 

complicates our efforts. But I can tell you that we are committed—

we have established a—

54

Chairman LEAHY. We find Halliburton gives water with E. coli 

in it to our troops. The press was able to find that out. We find 

that an enormous number of weapons we sent over there have been 

sold on the black market. There should be some ability to trace 

some of this. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, sure there is. But, I mean, 

can you make a case? I mean, that is the thing. We do operate 

under a system of laws and procedures. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, how many prosecutors or investigators 

are currently assigned to investigate contracting fraud in Iraq? 

Attorney General GONZALES. We can give you that number, but 

let me just mention we do have a procurement fraud task force 

where we are working with IGs and investigators, including in 

Iraq, to ensure that we have the best practices in place, that we 

are coordinated, that we are communicating with each other. And 

so there is a coordinated effort to go after procurement fraud generally, but also within Iraq. 

Chairman LEAHY. Do you know offhand how many prosecutors—

Attorney General GONZALES. I do not, sir, but I will get you that 

information. 

Chairman LEAHY. Can we have it before we come—

Attorney General GONZALES. I will try to do that. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let me ask you another question, and then we 

can take a break. You know, I live about an hour’s drive from Canada and go up there often, and in Vermont we tend to get a lot of 

Canadian news on the radio and so on. 

But something that made the news here in the United States 

was the question of Maher Arar. That is M-a-h-e-r, A-r-a-r, in case 

I mispronounced it. He is a Canadian citizen. He was returning 

home from a vacation. The plane stops at JFK in New York and 

continues on to Canada. He was detained by Federal agents at JFK 

Airport in 2002 on suspicion of ties to terrorism. He was deported 

to Syria. 

He was not sent on the couple hundred miles to Canada and 

turned over to the Canadian authorities, but he was sent thousands of miles away to Syria. He was held for 10 months. 

The Canadian Commission later found that there was no evidence to support he had any terrorist connection or posed any 

threat, but that he was tortured in Syria. He was held in abhorrent 

conditions there, and those sending him back must have known he 

was going to be tortured. 

The Canadian Government has apologized for its part in this debacle. In fact, the head of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police actually resigned over it. The country is prepared to compensate him 

for it. 

This country has not said anything at all that we made any mistake or had any apology. Press accounts indicate the Justice Department approved his deportation to Syria. I have not heard anything clear from the Justice Department about their role in this affair. 

And I understand he remains on the United States terrorist 

watchlist so he could not come 50 miles or 75 miles, or whatever 

it is, south into the United States without fear of being picked up 

again and sent back to Syria. 

55

Why is he on a Government watchlist if he has been found completely innocent by this Canadian Commission, which actually had 

information from us? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, I have got some very definite views about this particular case. As you—

Chairman LEAHY. Well, go ahead. 

Attorney General GONZALES. As you know, we are in litigation. 

What I want to do is hopefully in the next few days, I am happy 

to sit down with you and Senator Specter and give you more information. In fact, we may be able to publicly say more about this 

shortly. I am just not at liberty at this time to say—

Chairman LEAHY. Let me ask you this: Why are not you at liberty? I do not understand that. This is not a matter of Executive 

privilege. 

Attorney General GONZALES. No, sir. Again, I am not—

Chairman LEAHY. Because only the President could claim it. You 

cannot. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I am not suggesting that I will not 

be able to answer your questions. I am just suggesting I cannot do 

it today. 

Chairman LEAHY. Why? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, I am not—there is not a position—I cannot represent the position of the executive branch on 

this particular issue, but I think in a relatively short period of 

time, there is more information that I should be able to share with 

you, and hopefully that we can share publicly. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, why was he sent to Syria instead of Canada? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, again, Senator, I would be 

happy to answer these questions. I am aware of the list of questions you—I think you and Chairman Biden have submitted with 

respect to this particular case. I think we can say a lot more about 

it if you will just simply give me some additional time. 

Chairman LEAHY. Can you tell me whether you took steps to ensure that he would not be tortured? Of course, he was. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I believe that piece of information 

is public. There were steps—I think General Ashcroft confirmed 

this publicly that there were assurances sought that he would not 

be tortured from Syria. But—

Chairman LEAHY. Attorney General, I am sorry. I do not mean 

to treat this lightly. We knew damn well if he went to Canada he 

would not be tortured. He would be held and he would be investigated. We also knew damn well if he went to Syria he would be 

tortured. 

It is beneath the dignity of this country, a country that has always been a beacon of human rights, to send somebody to another 

country to be tortured. You know and I know that has happened 

a number of times in the past 5 years by this country. It is a black 

mark on us. 

It has brought about the condemnation of some of our closest and 

best allies. They have made those comments both publicly and privately to the President of the United States and others. 

It is easy for us to sit here comfortably in this room knowing that 

we are not going to be sent off to another country to be tortured, 

56

to treat it as though, well, Attorney General Ashcroft said we got 

assurances. Assurances from a country that we also say now, oh, 

we cannot talk to them because we cannot take their word for anything. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, Senator, I—

Chairman LEAHY. I am somewhat upset. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, sir, I can tell. But before you 

get more upset, perhaps you should wait to receive the briefing—

Chairman LEAHY. How long? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I am hoping that we can get you 

the information next week. 

Chairman LEAHY. Well, Attorney General, I will tell you what I 

will do. I will meet you halfway on this. I will wait next week for 

that briefing. If we do not get it, I guarantee you there will be another hearing on this issue. 

The Canadians have been our closest allies, the longest unguarded frontier in the world. They are justifiably upset. They are 

wondering what has happened to us. They are wondering what has 

happened to us. 

Now, you know and I know we are a country with a great, great 

tradition of protecting people’s individual liberties and rights. You 

take an oath of office to do that. I take an oath of office to do that. 

I believe in my basic core nature in that. 

My grandparents when they immigrated to this country believed 

that. Let us not create more terrorism around the world by telling 

the world that we cannot keep up to our basic standards and beliefs. 

So I will wait a week. I will wait a week. But I will not wait 

more than a week for that briefing. 

We will stand in recess unless you want to say something further. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Only, Mr. Chairman, that we understand what our legal obligations are with respect to when someone is either removed, extradited, or rendered to another country. 

We understand what our obligations are under the Convention 

Against Torture, and we do take the steps to ensure that those obligations are being met. 

I look forward to be able to provide the briefing that you are requesting. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

We will stand in recess until 2. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the Committee recessed, to reconvene 

at 2 p.m., this same day.] 

Chairman LEAHY. Before we start, first I will yield a minute to 

the Senator from Iowa, because he had something he wanted to 

correct. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Only a minute, for my colleagues over there 

that have not had their first round yet. 

I took what you said about not receiving letters from me, and we 

have checked with the Department of Justice Legislative Affairs. 

You received my January 9th letter by fax at 6:16 p.m. that day; 

my March 17th letter by e-mail at 5:41 p.m. on that day; and my 

April 26th letter by e-mail at 1:49 on that day. So I hope you will 

do that. 

57

And then because I have to go, I am going to submit a question 

on agricultural concentration, and I would appreciate an answer in 

writing because I have a great deal of interest to make sure that 

we keep a competitive environment within agriculture. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Thank you for the information, Senator. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Of course. 

Mr. Attorney General, let me just make a short observation, and 

I realize Senator Specter is back here, but you made a comment 

with him, speaking about habeas corpus, that troubles me. 

You argued that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to 

habeas corpus because in a negative construction, what it literally 

does is prohibits the Congress from suspending the privilege or the 

writ of habeas corpus except in cases of rebellion or invasion. 

Well, many of our most cherished rights are guaranteed by the 

Constitution in much the same way. For example, the First 

Amendment is also a negative construction. It prohibits Congress 

from making laws infringing on religious freedom and our freedom 

of speech. But you would not say that it does not guarantee free 

speech and religion. 

The Fifth Amendment is negative. It prohibits the Government 

very overreaching in the deprivation of life, liberty, and property 

without due process of law. I mean, I could go into the Second 

Amendment and the Fourth Amendment. 

But you see what I am doing here. They do not lay out a right. 

They prohibit you from taking away a right. So why would not that 

apply the same thing to the writ of habeas corpus? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I do not disagree at all, Mr. Chairman. I was just simply making an observation that there is not an 

express grant. My understanding is that in the debate during the 

framing of the Constitution, there was discussion as to whether or 

not there should be an express grant, and the decision was made 

not to do so. 

But what you see in the language is a compromise. I think the 

fact that in 1789 the Judiciary Act—they passed statutory habeas 

for the first time. They reflect maybe—I do not want to say a concern, but why pass a statutory right associated to the Constitution? 

Perhaps because there was not an express grant of habeas. 

I believe that the right of habeas is something that is very, very 

important, one of our most cherished rights, and so I was simply 

making an observation as to the literal language that the—

Chairman LEAHY. I think one wants to be very careful in making 

the argument the way it is. I will continue to make the argument 

that the Congress made a disastrous mistake in restricting the writ 

of habeas corpus by legislation. 

And I and I understand a number of Republicans, Senator Specter among others, will join together to try to rectify that mistake. 

But I am on the time of the senior Senator from Illinois, who is 

also the Deputy Majority Leader, Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. 

Attorney General, for your service to our country and for joining us 

today. Thanks to all of your staff for your hard work. 

58

I would like to ask you, Mr. Attorney General, to allow me to say 

a few words and then react to them if you would. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. I am trying to understand in my mind what the 

image of America is when it comes to the treatment of prisoners 

who are being detained. I am afraid that in many parts of the 

world they believe that we have abandoned some of our time-honored principles of due process since 9/11, and they question whether the United States is now following a course of conduct that for 

years we have said does not define us as a Nation. Let me give you 

three specific examples. 

First, on military commissions, Senator Specter and I prepared 

a bill back in 2002 trying to find a congressional answer to the construction of these military commissions which would meet the security needs of our country. 

The administration decided, the executive branch, not to deal 

with Congress but to try to create these military commissions on 

their own and, unfortunately, the outcome was not good. So here 

we are 5 years and zero convictions at Guantanamo because the 

administration would not work with Congress to create military 

commissions. 

No. 2, you gave a speech very recently—in fact, it was yesterday—before the American Enterprise Institute which raised some 

troubling observations. In this speech, as it was reported, you said, 

and I quote, ‘‘A judge will never be in a position to know what is 

in the national security interests of the country.’’

‘‘I tried to imagine myself being a judge. What do I know about 

what is going on in Afghanistan or Guantanamo? ’’

Now, the person who wrote the article opened it by saying, 

‘‘Alberto Gonzales on Wednesday warned Federal judges not to 

meddle in cases involving national security following a string of judicial rebukes of the administration’s antiterrorism initiatives.’’

An observer of your statement in that article would conclude that 

you have not only at the executive level forsaken cooperation with 

the legislative branch of our Government, you are now suggesting 

the judicial branch cannot be trusted when it comes to issues of national security. 

But it does not end there. Cully Stimson, the Assistant Secretary 

in the Department of Defense, took it a step further and questioned 

whether or not there was a right to counsel and raised the specter 

that if we allowed detainees to have an opportunity to be represented, it would mean that the cases would take longer and the 

desired result might not be attained. 

Now, Mr. Stimson, in fairness, apologized for his remarks yesterday. But step back for a moment, if you will, as an average American or someone observing America under these circumstances and 

say, well, this is just an effort to consolidate power in the executive 

branch of Government, to deny right to counsel, to deny judicial 

oversight because they cannot be up to the job, and not to involve 

Congress in creating commissions that might result in more due 

process. 

Can you understand how some could draw that conclusion from 

those three examples? 

59

Attorney General GONZALES. Thank you, Senator. Can I speak 

about my reaction? 

Senator DURBIN. Of course. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Obviously, military commissions, 

you are right. We began the process several years ago believing, 

based upon previous precedent and tradition, that the President of 

the United States, relying upon the model in Quirin during World 

War II, could establish military commissions. 

The Supreme Court of the United States said no, that given the 

fact that Congress has spoken in this area, if the President wanted 

to use military commissions that differed from the procedures outlined by Congress, there would have to be a necessity for that and 

the President had not articulated such a necessity. 

And so because of that we went to the Congress and worked with 

the Congress to get a set of procedures for military commissions. 

I think that they reflect an agreement between the executive 

branch and the legislative branch to ensure that unlawful combatants who do not play by the rules, who are indiscriminately killing 

innocents, nonetheless are going to receive a fair trial as we bring 

them to justice. 

My speech to the American Enterprise Institute, I want to make 

sure you get a copy of it, because the focus of the speech was to 

put into context in my mind the appropriate role of the judiciary 

in our system of Government and that there really ought to be 

strong deference by the judicial branch not just to the executive 

branch but primarily to the Congress in terms of making policy decisions, particularly with respect to national security. 

You have the ability to have hearings and gather up information 

in deciding what is in the best interests of the country. We have 

embassies around the world. We have national intelligence agencies which gather up information. The Congress and the executive 

branch are in a much better place to determine what is in the national security interests of our country as opposed to the courts. 

Clearly, I am not saying that courts do not have a role in deciding legal issues relating to terrorism cases. That is their job. I just 

want to make sure that they are deciding the legal issues and not 

making policy decisions. That was the purpose of the speech that 

I gave yesterday. 

Finally, with respect to lawyers, I am already on record saying 

that we are supporting a process where lawyers will be made available in the trials at Guantanamo. My own sense is that they will 

be represented by the best counsel that is available. We will have 

good lawyers on our side. And that is the best way to ensure justice 

with respect to these trials. 

I do share your concern about our image around the world, and 

I think that there are some things we probably could have done 

better, could have done differently. And I think we have an obligation in the executive branch to try to do a better job and try to—

I do not want to say rehabilitate ourselves, but give a better explanation of what we are doing. 

Senator DURBIN. Well, Mr. Attorney General, in fairness to the 

President when asked about mistakes said Abu Ghraib was a mistake. He concedes, and I think we all do, that the treatment of detainees was a mistake. 

60

Now, let me ask you a specific question on that, though. When 

it comes to the mistreatment of detainees, we know the Defense 

Department has responsibility to judge the actions of military personnel. When it comes, however, to civilian personnel, whether we 

are talking about people who work for the CIA or other agencies, 

that is being handled by your Department. 

Attorney General GONZALES. That is correct. 

Senator DURBIN. Attorney General Ashcroft several years ago 

transferred pending cases to the Eastern District of Virginia. Two 

and a half years since the transfer, there has not been a single indictment in any cases. While soldiers have been sent to prison for 

abuses of detainees, our Department of Justice has not prosecuted 

a single individual. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I think there was an individual 

name Basara who was, in fact, convicted. I am obviously aware of 

your very strong interest in this. We have responded with a letter 

sort of outlining—giving as much information as we can about the 

status of the investigations. 

Quite candidly, as the letter indicates, there are very difficult 

hurdles that we have to deal with, with respect to these kinds of 

prosecutions when you are talking about trying to prosecute a case 

that occurred—for activities that occurred in a war zone, for example. There are unique challenges. Nonetheless, we are committed to 

try to bring people to justice and—

Senator DURBIN. May I ask you about a specific instance? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. I know my time is up here, but the use of dogs 

in interrogation was part of specifically authorized activity by thenDefense Secretary Rumsfeld as well as Mr. Haynes, whose name 

has now been withdrawn for appointment to the circuit court. 

Can you assure us that none of the civilian cases under investigation by the Justice Department involve the use of techniques 

that were authorized by the administration and later abandoned as 

inconsistent with our opposition to torture and our adherence to 

Geneva Convention rules? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, Senator, I would be happy to 

go back and look at that before giving you that kind of assurances. 

But I know that our prosecutors understand that if, in fact, someone is engaged in conduct which violates the law, they are going 

to be prosecuted if we can make the case. 

Senator DURBIN. But it has not happened. And you understand 

soldiers have gone to jail. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, sir, I do understand. 

Senator DURBIN. Men and women in uniform have gone to jail, 

and the average American has to step back and say, Wait a 

minute, why would you hold the soldiers to a high standard, imprison them and convict them, and then not find a civilian involved 

in similar conduct responsible as well? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Again, Senator, I think, you know, 

one is better than zero. I think there has been at least one. But 

these are difficult cases. We are committed to get to the bottom of 

it because you are correct. 

You know, it is one thing for us to say—you know, when people 

raise the possibility that the United States is involved in torture, 

61

what I say is, listen, the difference between the United States and 

a lot of other countries is that when there are allegations about 

mistreatment, there are investigations; and if people are not adhering to the legal standards, then they are held accountable. 

I know that is what the President expects of us. That is what I 

have asked of our prosecutors. I am not saying this is an excuse 

because there is no excuse for not prosecuting cases that should be 

prosecuted. These do present unique challenges for us, and I can 

commit to you that we will continue looking to see what cases can 

be brought, if, in fact, there are legitimate cases to bring. 

Senator DURBIN. One last short question about letters that Senator Grassley raised. Last August, Senators Kennedy, Feingold, 

and myself sent a letter to the President and to your attention asking him to reconsider his decision to block the Office of Professional 

Responsibility from investigating Justice Department attorneys 

who approved the NSA program engaged in misconduct. Do you believe the OPR investigation should be permitted to go forward? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, well, I mean, the President 

has made the decision as to whether or not they should be read 

into the program, which, of course, as announced yesterday by the 

President, will not be reauthorized. 

I can tell you that the IG, the Inspector General of the Department, is doing an investigation with respect to the FBI’s role in 

this program. 

Senator DURBIN. I just hope that you agree with me that Mr. 

Bradbury’s confirmation should not go forward if he is still under 

investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, I am not aware that he is 

under investigation by the Office of Professional Responsibility. 

Senator DURBIN. I hope we can get an answer to our letter of last 

August. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, sir. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I agree with the Senator from Illinois—

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, your microphone? 

Chairman LEAHY. I am new at this. I agree with the Senator 

from Illinois. If there is such an investigation going on, we should 

know that, and I would want to know that definitively one way or 

the other before any confirmation hearing would be scheduled. 

I think that the Senator from Illinois asks a legitimate question. 

I think it is one that could be cleared up quickly one way or the 

other. I think that perhaps the best way would be to respond to me 

and to Senator Specter on that issue. 

We have also been joined by a new member of this Committee, 

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse from Rhode Island. Senator 

Whitehouse is a distinguished former Attorney General, and I appreciate very much his willingness to come on this Committee. He 

has already been extraordinarily helpful to the Committee in planning purposes. Senator Whitehouse, the floor is yours. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General, it is nice to see you. Thank you for being here. 

I would like to start with an observation in response to the colloquy 

between you and Senator Feinstein. As a former United States Attorney and somebody who as U.S. Attorney had very active invesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:55 Jun 07, 2007 Jkt 035728 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\35728.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
62

tigations into public corruption in Rhode Island, I share a bit the 

concern of the removal of U.S. Attorneys under these circumstances. 

And in your response, you indicated that you would never do 

anything for, I think you said, political reasons, and you would certainly never do anything that would impede the ongoing investigation. 

I would suggest to you that in your analysis of what the Department’s posture should be in these situations, you should also consider the potential chilling effect on other United States Attorneys 

when a United States Attorney who is involved in an ongoing public corruption case is removed from office. 

They are not easy cases to do technically, as you know. They are 

fraught with a lot of risk. And I think that U.S. Attorneys show 

a lot of courage when they proceed with those cases. And any signal that might be interpreted or misinterpreted as discouraging 

those kinds of activities I think is one you would want to be very, 

very careful about. 

So I would propose to you that that is a consideration you should 

have in mind as you make those removal and reappointment decisions. 

Attorney General GONZALES. It already is, but thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The other question I have is—the Chairman has been good enough to suggest that he is new at this. I am 

really new at this, and I would like to start really right at the very, 

very beginning, and that is, with the nature of executive testimony 

before a congressional inquiry. 

You and I have both been in courtrooms and tried cases. We 

have both dealt with witnesses. And I have a pretty established set 

of expectations about what a witness is obliged to do. 

First, let me ask you, Has the Department ever provided formal 

advice to the executive branch as to the responsibilities and obligations that a member of the executive branch accept by testifying 

before Congress in a hearing? 

Attorney General GONZALES. If I understand your question, the 

Department is charged by regulation and by statute to provide 

legal advice to the executive branch. We have had one meeting at 

the Department in the last few months, I guess, with various individuals from other agencies to provide advice with respect to ensure better coordination and consultation with sharing information 

with the Congress. And I believe there has also been a series of 

sort of a smaller set of meetings with the same objective. 

Our advice is—I mean our role as a Department is to- -we are 

the counsel for the executive branch, and our role is to give advice, 

and that advice is for the purpose of ensuring that we are meeting 

our appropriate level of accommodation and consultation and coordination and cooperation with the Congress. Yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Have you published anything? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I have not published anything—

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Say a handout that you give to a witness 

that says, look, you are going up to testify before Congress, here 

are your responsibilities? 

63

Attorney General GONZALES. I do not know if there was a—I certainly read something. It is very much consistent with what I sent 

the Chairman. I sent the Chairman a letter last week in response 

to a request for information that he had made. We had sent back 

a response. It was one that disappointed him. 

Therefore, I sent back a response saying, well, let us get our 

staffs together and see if we can reach some kind of accommodation 

here. And, by the way, this is a set of principles that I intend to 

follow. They are a set of principles outlined in the letter from the 

Assistant Attorney General under Janet Reno to a gentleman 

named Linder. It goes through various categories in explaining—

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Rather than explaining it to me now, 

would you mind just sending me a copy and I can go on from there. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Because there are other questions I want 

to followup on a little bit. First of all, do you think whether a witness is sworn or not makes a difference in what their obligations 

are when they are the witness before a congressional hearing? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Well, it certainly would not matter 

to me in terms of the answer that I would provide. I think there 

are statutes that would make it a crime in any event, even if you 

were not sworn in. 

And so I think that the repercussions—the legal ramifications of 

being sworn in or not being sworn in, I think they are the same. 

There are statutes that would kick in whether or not you are sworn 

in or not. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And if obviously we are aware that if 

somebody comes and provides an affirmative untruth or falsehood 

to a congressional committee, there are consequences from that. 

Moving on to the next step, we have all been in courtrooms 

where witnesses engage in what you might call the old ‘‘bob and 

weave’’ and simply did not answer the question, and whether it is 

the exalted United States District Courts right down to the District 

Court in Rhode Island, administrative law judges all over Government, when a lawyer has a witness and is asking questions, if the 

witness is dodging the question, there comes a point where the lawyer is entitled to ask the judge to direct the witness to answer the 

question. 

Is there any such authority that you believe exists in Congress 

to penetrate the ‘‘bob and weave’’ if it is happening that is akin to 

what you and I as lawyers have experienced in the courtroom when 

finally a properly propounded question that is not being fairly answered, you can kind of cut to the chase and get an answer? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Sir, I do not know what that would 

be. Obviously, there are times where it is difficult to give the kind 

of response that a question may seek to solicit. It may be that for 

reasons of national security—

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, let us assume for a minute that it 

is not Executive privilege, it is not Fifth Amendment privilege, it 

is not national security. My hypothetical is that the question is 

simply being avoided, and we have all—

Attorney General GONZALES. It may be embarrassing or something. 

64

Senator WHITEHOUSE.—encountered witnesses who are capable 

of doing that in court proceedings all our lives. And I do not think 

it is going to stop just because I am a Member of Congress now 

that people are evasive about questions. Do you think the Chairman has the authority to direct a witness to answer? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I think the Chairman has a great 

deal of authority, and I think what would normally happen in that 

kind of situation is that there would be discussions, if not between 

the Chairman and the witness, perhaps between the individual 

Senator and the witness. It may not occur at during the hearing, 

but the fact that, for example, during our exchange you may not 

get an answer that you are satisfied with. 

My obligation, I think, to communicate and consult with the Congress does not end when this hearing ends, and so if you are 

unsatisfied with the answer to a question, I think you and I should 

have additional discussions, quite frankly. And we will figure out 

whether or not we can give you the answer that would satisfy you 

in terms of—I mean, a responsive answer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate your sharing with me your 

sense of those ground rules, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. Let me just wrap on this. 

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans has seen a particularly painful surge in crime. I base this just on what I see in 

the news. It is recovering from the devastation of the hurricane. 

The recovery effort was too little, too late. 

Without going into the catalogue of things that went wrong, the 

fact is you now have a wave of violent crime that makes it—it 

would make it difficult for any city to get back on its feet, but certainly for a city in the State of Louisiana, it is especially difficult. 

I know Senator Landrieu, the senior Senator from Louisiana, has 

proposed a plan, a 10-point plan, to crack down on crime in New 

Orleans. It is going to require a lot of new Federal manpower and 

resources. 

Will you work with Senator Landrieu to make sure that anything 

that could be available from the Federal Government is available 

in that devastated area? 

Attorney General GONZALES. I am reminded that I am speaking 

to Senator Landrieu tomorrow. Senator, there are some serious 

issues, particularly in law enforcement, in New Orleans. I think we 

have done a lot as a Department. I am happy to sit down with Senator Landrieu and see what else we can do. I am aware of the challenges that currently exist and still exist in Louisiana. 

Chairman LEAHY. And I am not sitting here suggesting I have 

got an automatic road map of how to make it better. It is going to 

be very, very difficult. You have got criminal matters, social matters, reconstruction matters. 

But that city—none of us have experienced in our homes anything that devastating, and I think as a country, just as we banded 

together as a country for earthquake victims and flood victims and 

fire victims in other parts of the Nation, that is the benefit of a nation like ours. And I would urge you to do whatever you can do to 

help down there, and if there is anything I can do, I will add to 

that. 

65

Attorney General GONZALES. Senator, the President has been 

very clear in terms of our obligation to try to do what we can do 

to be helpful to the locals. 

Chairman LEAHY. And Senator Durbin has already raised this 

issue about Cully Stimson. I cannot tell you how angry I was that 

here he is the Assistant Secretary in charge of detainee affairs at 

the Department of Defense, condemning lawyers for donating their 

legal services. I was a defense attorney before I was a prosecutor. 

One of the things I knew very well: your best chance of getting 

justice done is you have a very good lawyer for the prosecution and 

a very good lawyer for the defense, and then things work well. 

I think it was outrageous. I was glad to hear what you said here 

today. I am going to put into the record a letter from the deans 

from several prominent law schools who tried to teach young lawyers the value of pro bono. And I went to—I was at a law firm initially with a very—the senior partner was a very conservative Republican. I think I was about the second Democrat in 30 years ever 

to be put in there. And he pounded home to everybody that you did 

pro bono work or you did not serve in his law firm. I will put that 

in the record. 

But, you know, even Mr. Stimson’s apology, if I might say, I 

thought was very much too little, too late. His comments were so 

carefully timed to coincide with a broadside and the right to counsel and an op-ed piece published in the Wall Street Journal. 

Am I correct in assuming that you feel very strongly that there 

should be adequate counsel on both sides in any of these issues? 

Attorney General GONZALES. Certainly, Senator, with respect to 

the trials going on at Guantanamo, our whole structure is focused 

on adversary proceeding where we will be—the United States will 

be well represented and I am sure the detainees will be well represented as well. 

Chairman LEAHY. Let us not condemn those lawyers. They are 

very, very good lawyers, many of whom are doing it at great person 

cost to themselves, who want to stand in and make sure rights are 

handled. They deserve our praise for doing it. 

Now, I hope the disagreements today do not totally obscure my 

desire to work with you and make the Department of Justice a better defender of our rights, our constitutional rights. 

Even when I was a law school student, I remember being invited 

with a dozen other students to go and meet with the then-Attorney 

General of the United States, Robert Kennedy. We thought it was 

going to be a grip-and-grin. It turned out to be at least a couple 

hours. 

I have never forgotten that meeting. Never forgotten that meeting. Some of us went on to be prosecutors, some defense attorneys, 

some judges out of that dozen. All of us were inspired by his commitment that the Department of Justice defends everybody’s rights. 

Now, working with Senator Specter and Senator Kennedy and 

others in a bipartisan way, I hope we can enact fair and comprehensive immigration reform. I have had, along with others, long 

talks with the President who says he wants a comprehensive immigration reform. 

I realize the talking points got way down the line during last 

fall’s elections. We do not have elections this year. If we are going 

66

to have comprehensive immigration reform, it is going to require 

every one of us to leave our political labels at the door and work 

together. 

The same with rising violent crime. Many will say we have got 

to put money into police forces in Iraq, and that may well be. I am 

not here to debate that. But I do think we have to do more Federal 

assistance, State and local law enforcement partners. I have seen 

how well it works. 

Attorney General GONZALES. Mr. Chairman, as you—

Chairman LEAHY. And, you know, those are just some of the 

areas that I think that we have to provide more to our U.S. Attorneys around the country. They are on the front lines. 

We have some of the most—and this has been true with most administrations—some of the best men and women you can imagine 

working there. And I admire what they are doing. I believe Senator 

Whitehouse is a former U.S. Attorney, and we know how difficult 

that is. 

So let us find those areas where we can work together. We will 

still lock horns in a number of areas, as we have in the past. But 

there are so many areas for the good of this country that this Committee and your office have got to work together. 

Attorney General GONZALES. I agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:31 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

67


35728.001
68


35728.002
69


35728.003
70


35728.004
71


35728.005
72


35728.006
73


35728.007
74


35728.008
75


35728.009
76


35728.010
77


35728.011
78


35728.012
79


35728.013
80


35728.014
81


35728.015
82


35728.016
83


35728.017
84


35728.018
85


35728.019
86


35728.020
87


35728.021
88


35728.022
89


35728.023
90


35728.024
91


35728.025
92


35728.026
93


35728.027
94


35728.028
95


35728.029
96


35728.030
97


35728.031
98


35728.032
99


35728.033
100


35728.034
101


35728.035
102


35728.036
103


35728.037
104


35728.038
105


35728.039
106


35728.040
107


35728.041
108


35728.042
109


35728.043
110


35728.044
111


35728.045
112


35728.046
113


35728.047
114


35728.048
115


35728.049
116


35728.050
117


35728.051
118


35728.052
119


35728.053
120


35728.054
121


35728.055
122


35728.056
123


35728.057
124


35728.058
125


35728.059
126


35728.060
127


35728.061
128


35728.062
129


35728.063
130


35728.064
131


35728.065
132


35728.066
133


35728.067
134


35728.068
135


35728.069
136


35728.070
137


35728.071
138


35728.072
139


35728.073
140


35728.074
141


35728.075
142


35728.076
143


35728.077
144


35728.078
145


35728.079
146


35728.080
147


35728.081
148


35728.082
149


35728.083
150


35728.084
151


35728.085
152


35728.086
153


35728.087
154


35728.088
155


35728.089
156


35728.090
157


35728.091
158


35728.092
159


35728.093
160


35728.094
161


35728.095
162


35728.096
163


35728.097
164


35728.098
165


35728.099
166


35728.100
167


35728.101
168


35728.102
169


35728.103
170


35728.104
171


35728.105
172


35728.106
173


35728.107
174


35728.108
175


35728.109
176


35728.110
177


35728.111
178


35728.112
179


35728.113
180


35728.114
181


35728.115
182


35728.116
183


35728.117
184


35728.118
185


35728.119
186


35728.120
187


35728.121
188


35728.122
189


35728.123
190


35728.124
191


35728.125
192


35728.126
193


35728.127
194


35728.128
195


35728.129
196


35728.130
197


35728.131
198


35728.132
199


35728.133
200


35728.134
201


35728.135
202


35728.136
203


35728.137
204


35728.138
205


35728.139
206


35728.140
207


35728.141
208


35728.142
209


35728.143
210


35728.144
211


35728.145
212


35728.146
213


35728.147
214


35728.148
215


35728.149
216


35728.150
217


35728.151
218


35728.152
219


35728.153
220


35728.154
221


35728.155
222


35728.156
223


35728.157
224


35728.158
225


35728.159
226


35728.160
227


35728.161
228


35728.162
229


35728.163
230


35728.164
231


35728.165
232


35728.166
233


35728.167
234


35728.168
235


35728.169
236


35728.170
237


35728.171
238


35728.172
239


35728.173
240


35728.174
241


35728.175
242


35728.176
243


35728.177
244


35728.178
245


35728.179
246


35728.180
247


35728.181
248


35728.182
249


35728.183
250


35728.184
251


35728.185
252


35728.186
253


35728.187
254


35728.192
255


35728.189
256


35728.190
257

Æ


35728.191