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

91–347 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–302

NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL J. GARCIA TO BE

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT

OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND JACK LANDMAN

GOLDSMITH III TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY

GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 8, 2003

Serial No. J–108–22

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia ..................... 1

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 113

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 114

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 25

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 117

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 4

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 119

PRESENTER 

Allen, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting 

Jack Landman Goldsmith III, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, 

Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice ................................................ 1

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Garcia, Michael J., Nominee to be Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security .............................. 5

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 9

Goldsmith, Jack Landman, III, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, 

Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice ................................................ 33

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 34

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses Michael Garcia to questions submitted by Senator Durbin ............... 67

Responses Michael Garcia to questions submitted by Senator Feingold ............ 72

Responses Michael Garcia to questions submitted by Senator Feinstein ........... 78

Responses Michael Garcia to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ............ 89

Responses Michael Garcia to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy ............ 91

Responses Michael Garcia to questions submitted by Senator Leahy ................ 103

Responses Michael Garcia to questions submitted by Senator Sessions ............ 106

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia, statement 

in support of Jack Handman Goldsmith III, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice .......................... 124

(1)

NOMINATION OF MICHAEL J. GARCIA TO BE 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION 

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; JACK 

LANDMAN GOLDSMITH III TO BE ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL 

COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2003 

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., in room 

SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Saxby Chambliss 

presiding. 

Present: Senators Chambliss, Leahy, and Kennedy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA 

Senator CHAMBLISS. The Committee will come to order. 

I understand that Senator Kennedy is on his way, but he is going 

to be a few minutes, and we have one of our very distinguished colleagues here that I do not want to hold up any longer than we have 

to. 

Senator Allen, we are very pleased to have you join us today, and 

we would welcome any comments you have regarding introduction 

of either of our panelists today. 

PRESENTATION OF JACK LANDMAN GOLDSMITH III, NOMINEE 

TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL 

COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BY HON. GEORGE 

ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon and 

thank you for your courtesy, as always, and your wonderful leadership. 

I am here, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, to support the nomination of a fellow Virginian, Mr. Jack Goldsmith, to 

be Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the 

United States Department of Justice. I also have with me a statement I would like to have put in the record for my good colleague 

and teammate from Virginia, Senator Warner, also in support of 

Jack Goldsmith for this position. 

2

Senator CHAMBLISS. Certainly. Without objection, Senator Warner’s statement will be entered. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I know that this Committee and the members will review the 

background of Mr. Goldsmith. I have been very impressed by the 

expressions of support that I have received from professors at the 

University of Virginia School of Law expressing Mr. Goldsmith’s 

strong qualifications for the position to which he has been nominated. These letters and comments say a great deal about their 

view and people who know him the best call him ‘‘a superb lawyer 

and legal scholar of impeccable credentials’’ who has ‘‘played an important role in helping our country wage the war on terror while 

serving at the Department of Defense,’’ and that is just in recent 

years. 

One letter says Mr. Goldsmith is ‘‘a leading expert on international law,’’ and certainly when you look at his record, he is a 

leading expert on international law and has influence extending beyond the academic world into the broader community of specialists 

and policymakers. 

The University of Virginia Law School has been very gracious 

enough to loan Mr. Goldsmith to the Department of Defense where 

he currently serves as Special Counsel. However, I am also 

pleased—and I confirmed it with him on cross-examination before 

this hearing—that he has pledged to return to the University of 

Virginia following his service in the Department of Justice. 

Now, the recent 5 years, Mr. Goldsmith served as an associate 

professor at the University of Chicago Law School specializing in 

foreign affairs and in international law. In addition to his outstanding academic legal career, Mr. Goldsmith had the extensive 

and wonderful pleasure of having some impressive clerkships, with 

Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who was the chief judge of the Fourth 

Circuit Court of Appeals; he also served in a clerkship with Justice 

Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court, and Judge 

George Aldrich of the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal. 

Mr. Goldsmith earned his first bachelor’s degree from Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia, and a second 

bachelor’s degree from Oxford University. He received his master’s 

degree from Oxford University and his law degree from the Yale 

Law School. 

I also would like to have you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee, Senator Leahy, to recognize some of Mr. Goldsmith’s 

family members who are here with us today: first, his lovely wife, 

Leslie, straight behind me; his son, Jack Goldsmith IV, who is now 

playing with his stickers, has a pacifier of sorts. 

Senator LEAHY. He is the happiest one in the room. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator ALLEN. That is right. Happy pup. 

Also his mother, Brenda O’Brien, is here with us, and his mother-in-law, Glenda Williams; and his two brothers, Stephen and 

Brett O’Brien. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, it is my sincere 

pleasure to present to this Committee this exceptional nominee, an 

outstanding Virginian, to you this afternoon, and I recommend him 

3

with the highest qualifications and hope that you will be able to 

move on him with all expedition and swiftness. 

And I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your courtesies and appreciate the outstanding job that you do in this Committee in reviewing nominees and moving as quickly as possible to allow the Department of Justice to do its job in protecting America’s freedoms 

as well as our security. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, thank you, Senator Allen, for coming 

and introducing Mr. Goldsmith to us. And I assure you, coming 

from you and Senator Warner, that recommendation is received 

with the high regard that it deserves. We appreciate very much 

you taking the time to come be with us today. 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

We have two nominees today, Michael Garcia and Jack Goldsmith, for consideration. I think what we will do is have them come 

up individually as opposed to having them come up together. 

So at this time I would like to ask Michael J. Garcia, who is 

nominated to be Assistant Secretary, United States Department of 

Homeland Security, if you will come forward. And before you sit 

down, if you will raise your right hand. Do you swear the testimony 

you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. GARCIA. I do. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. We are very pleased to have Mr. Michael 

Garcia before the Committee today as the President’s nominee to 

be Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement, which is known as BICE. This is a very important 

position, and we look forward to working with the Bureau to perform its essential duties within the Department of Homeland Security. 

Mr. Garcia served as Acting Commissioner of the Immigration 

and Naturalization Service from December 2002 to February 2003. 

In his new role at the Enforcement Bureau, I am confident he will 

continue to improve the security of this country. Mr. Garcia previously served as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement from August 2001 to November 2002. He is a distinguished Federal prosecutor who has worked in counterterrorism 

and national security issues for 10 years. 

For his prosecutions of several high-profile cases, including the 

first World Trade Center bombing, Mr. Garcia received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, the Department of 

Justice’s highest award. With his experience and knowledge, Mr. 

Garcia will be able to successfully lead the new Immigration Enforcement Bureau, the second largest Federal law enforcement 

agency. 

I had the privilege of introducing Mr. Garcia over at the Government Reform Committee a few weeks ago. I am very impressed 

with his background, with him personally, and it is indeed a privilege to have you here. I know he has with him his wife, Liana, 

who, Senator Leahy, does a very good job of looking after him. If 

he does not do what she tells him to do, she is a Special Agent for 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, so she can handle him. 

4

But we are indeed privileged to have both of you committed to 

public service. And, Mr. Garcia, before I turn it over to you for any 

comments you want to make or statements you want to make, I 

will turn to Senator Leahy for any comments he has before we proceed with you. 

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

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for doing this. I 

am glad that we have these people before us. I am only concerned 

that we are rushing these through so fast that as a result we are 

not having a chance to prepare as we might want to on some of 

these, especially as some of the material on some of these nominees—and some of them are going to be up before us tomorrow—

have barely arrived or are in the process of arriving so that we end 

up actually getting the material after the fact. And it makes it 

somewhat impossible to give the kind of advice and consent that 

we are supposed to. 

I do want to thank you, though, Mr. Chairman, and also Chairman Hatch and Senator Kennedy, for working together with me to 

seek and obtain the unanimous consent that the nomination of Michael Garcia be referred to the Judiciary Committee after Government Ops. Immigration policy is the responsibility of this Committee. Oversight over the way the new powers are being used 

should be ours. Like me, Mr. Garcia is a former prosecutor—I still 

think the best job I ever had. As an Assistant U.S. Attorney, he 

prosecuted cases involving terrorism, immigration, document fraud, 

was involved in several high-profile cases, including the trial of 

four defendants following the first World Trade Center bombing in 

1993; the trial of Ramzi Yousef and the prosecution of four defendants following the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa. 

Shortly before 9/11, he was appointed Assistant Secretary for Export Enforcement, and, of course, we have the rest of the things on 

his resume. He has served as Acting Assistant Secretary of BICE 

since March of 2003, where he has responsibility for the enforcement of immigration and customs laws. 

Also, if you don’t mind a point of actually parochial pride, he will 

be responsible for a number of Vermonters who have worked for 

the INS and for Customs before transition to DHS. I have asked 

Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson and Eduardo Aguirre, the head of 

the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Service, about their restructuring plan, what impact that is going to have on the employees in Vermont, the employees who consistently get awards as 

among the most productive in the service. Both of them have assured me that reorganization will make use of those workers. Both 

have assured me that Vermont will not lose jobs as a result. 

I think you will find that the Vermonters you have inherited 

from the legacy INS offices in Vermont, including the Eastern Region administrative centers, are among the most dedicated, conscientious people you will ever meet. And I encourage you to come 

and visit them. 

I think when some of these offices—1 day I was up there, I think 

a day or two before we had something like 12 or 15 inches of snow 

overnight. And I asked what time people showed up for work, and 

5

they looked at me like that was kind of a foolish question. They all 

showed up for work on time. Was there any particular reason why 

they would not? So that will give you an idea what they are like. 

I have sent a letter about the legacy of INS Detention and Removal personnel based in the former INS Eastern Region office. I 

have received an answer back from DHS staff, but I would like a 

more thorough reply, and also about the Law Enforcement Support 

Center. When we passed the Homeland Security Act, we made 

clear that as we divide immigration services and immigration enforcement, we have to keep open and clear information between the 

two and communication to make them work. 

So I look forward to your answers. I understand from your staff 

that you have an ambitious plan to reduce the absconder rate of 

aliens who have been ordered removed from the country to zero 

within 6 years. There is one major reason for the absconder rate. 

We do not have the facilities to house aliens while they awaiting 

removal, and that is going to require an enormous of resources. I 

look forward to hearing how that will be done. 

And, lastly, I would be remiss not to mention the recent OIG report on the treatment of September 11 detainees. The report addresses the treatment that many permanent residents and other 

aliens received in detention, the long delays in removing aliens who 

had final removal orders. I hope that will be instructive to you, and 

I hope it will be helpful. 

I am concerned about the discrepancy between the reasons you 

gave for refusing to answer questions asked of you by the Senate 

Governmental Affairs Committee, the discrepancy between your refusal and the response, very clear response, provided to the Committee by the Inspector General’s Office. That is an area I want to 

clear up, too. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Mr. Garcia, we will insert any written statement you want to put 

into the record, and we will call on your this time for any comments you would like to make before questions begin. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL J. GARCIA, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very 

much for that introduction today. Senator Leahy, thank you also 

for your remarks. It’s an honor to appear before this Committee as 

nominee for the position of Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or BICE, within the Department of Homeland Security. 

I would like to thank the President for his confidence he has 

shown in me by again nominating me to serve as the leader of a 

critical law enforcement agency within his administration. The 

leadership demonstrated by Congress in swiftly passing the Homeland Security Act and the President’s commitment to expeditiously 

implement the Act are monumental achievements in the defense of 

our Nation against the threat of terrorism. 

6

If confirmed, I will continue to implement the Act consistent with 

its intent and will remain focused on its overarching mission of 

providing greater security to our country. 

For the past 10 years, my career in public service has been devoted to counterterrorism and national security issues. This experience provides me with a unique perspective regarding the threats 

confronting our homeland and the tools and capabilities required to 

effectively meet them. I would bring this perspective and experience to the job of Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement should I be confirmed in this position. 

I would like to briefly describe my career in public service. After 

completing a clerkship for Judge Judith Kaye on the New York 

Court of Appeals, I had the privilege of joining the United States 

Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York. I joined 

that office at a unique time in its history. Six months after my appointment as an AUSA, in February 1993, the first attempt to topple the World Trade Center took place. It was at the time the single most devastating act of terrorism ever committed on U.S. soil. 

I was one of the prosecutors assigned to lead the investigation into 

that attack. 

This was new territory for law enforcement. From the investigative techniques brought to bear to the laws used to bring terrorists 

to justice, the case was a new model for terrorism prosecutions. All 

available tools were used. Statutes covering bombing of Government vehicles and immigration law violations, among others, were 

used against the defendants in that case. Agents from every Federal law enforcement agency brought their authorities and expertise to the case. As a member of the prosecution team, I was responsible for guiding this effort, presenting evidence to gain indictments, and presenting the case in court. All four defendants were 

convicted on all counts in that case. I received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service, the highest award presented 

by the U.S. Department of Justice, for my work on that case. 

My work on the World Trade Center bombing would define my 

career in Government service. Less than 1 year after the verdict in 

the Trade Center case, an explosion took place halfway around the 

world in Manila, where Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the Trade 

Center attacks, and his associates were mixing chemicals in an 

apartment in preparation for attacks on 12 U.S.-flag commercial 

jetliners. Their plan was to detonate bombs aboard those jetliners 

while they were airborne and filled with passengers on their way 

from Asia to the United States. I flew to Manila and directed the 

investigation and prosecution of that terrorist conspiracy. I oversaw 

a case that, unlike the 1993 bombing, involved terrorist activity 

outside the U.S. aimed at this country’s national security. 

In bringing charges against Yousef and his co-conspirators, including then-fugitive Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, I was the first to 

use some of the anti-terrorism statutes passed by Congress after 

the Trade Center bombing. I also coordinated the cooperation in 

the trial of a number of foreign governments, including the Philippines and Pakistan. In 1996, Ramzi Yousef and two other terrorists were convicted on all counts in that case. I received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service for my work on that 

case as well. 

7

In 1998, followers of Osama bin Laden bombed our embassies in 

Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More than 200 persons were murdered in these terrorist attacks. I was assigned as 

one of the lead prosecutors on the case against the four Al–Qaeda 

operatives who stood trial in New York. In preparing this case, I 

managed and led a team of investigators and staff in a worldwide 

effort to gather evidence, return terrorists to the United States, 

and coordinate efforts with the intelligence community. The jury 

returned guilty verdicts in this trial on all 302 counts. 

This case raised a number of issues of first impression with regard to crimes committed against U.S. interests overseas and the 

intersection of criminal investigations and intelligence gathering. 

In addition to the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished 

Service, I was awarded the CIA’s Agency Seal Medallion for my efforts in coordinating our criminal case with the intelligence community. 

My extensive management of complex counterterrorism prosecutions has taught me the important lessons about counterterrorism 

that I would bring to my role in BICE, if confirmed. Three of the 

most important include: first, the need to use all our enforcement 

tools and authorities in support of our counterterrorism efforts; second, the importance of coordination across agencies and with the 

intelligence community; and, third, that prevention and disruption 

need to be vital components of our counterterrorism strategy. 

Criminal prosecutions are just one tool in that effort to protect the 

homeland. 

After guilty verdicts in the embassy bombing case, I was nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as Assistant 

Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement. In this position, I 

led an enforcement agency with a national security mission: preventing sensitive technology from falling into the hands of those 

who would use it to harm U.S. national security. 

In December of 2002, the President designed me Acting Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. As Acting 

Commissioner, I was honored to lead the transition of that agency 

into the Department of Homeland Security, while at the same time 

ensuring that the critical day-to-day work of the agency continued 

uninterrupted. This was a monumental task involving dissolution 

of a 36,000-person agency. 

After the creation of DHS and the transfer of INS functions to 

that Department, I was named Acting Assistant Secretary of DHS 

for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. BICE, with 14,000 employees and 5,500 special agents, is the second largest investigative 

Federal law enforcement agency. On March 1st, that agency stood 

up a management structure that enabled all BICE employees to 

continue on with their critical enforcement missions while seeking 

to take advantage of the new opportunities presented by having the 

tools and authorities of the legacy components of INS, Customs, 

and the Federal Protective Service. This is the challenge of BICE: 

to create a unified enforcement agency capable of bringing all its 

law enforcement tools to bear in an efficient and effective manner 

on the vulnerabilities to our homeland security. 

We have just completed a reorganization that will provide BICE 

with a unified investigation structure, both in the field offices and 

8

at headquarters. The reorganization also created one unified intelligence division from the agency’s legacy components. If confirmed, 

I would bring to the task of leading this new enforcement agency 

a perspective gained from a career dedicated to anti-terrorism and 

national security. I would use this experience to guide my vision 

of a unified agency committed to a partnership with its Federal, 

State, and local counterparts and commit it to full and fair application of the tools and authorities given to BICE. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I would again like to commend 

Congress on its effort to protect the American people from those 

who seek to do us harm. It is an honor to be nominated as the Assistant Secretary to lead dedicated law enforcement officers in this 

unprecedented time. If confirmed, I vow to work together with this 

Committee and Congress to strengthen our Nation’s defense and 

protect the American people. 

Thank you again for your consideration, and I look forward to 

answering any questions. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Garcia follows:]

9


91347.001
10


91347.002
11


91347.003
12


91347.004
13


91347.005
14


91347.006
15


91347.007
16


91347.008
17


91347.009
18


91347.010
19


91347.011
20


91347.012
21

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Garcia, thank you for your commitment 

and service to the United States in the various capacities in which 

you have already served, and you certainly bring a strong background in law enforcement to this particular position, which is 

going to be so critical as we move forward with the establishment 

of the Department of Homeland Security. 

Let me start off by asking you about—there have been several 

statutory requirements passed over the last few years where Congress has mandated an entry/exit system to control our borders and 

track visitors while they are in the country. What is the role of 

your Bureau toward implementing this entry/exit system? And 

what challenges lie ahead before this system will be operational, 

particularly with the December 31, 2003, deadline starting us in 

the face? 

Mr. GARCIA. Yes, Mr. Chairman. As to the role of BICE, in the 

Department of Homeland Security what was the entry/exit program, NSEERS, have been combined into one umbrella named U.S. 

VISIT. The Secretary and the Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson 

place great importance and emphasis on this program and have 

elevated it—it was a program within the former INS—have elevated the status of that program to a BTS, a Directorate level initiative. So the U.S. VISIT program encompassing entry/exit is now 

being run out of Under Secretary Asa Hutchinson’s office. 

BICE will continue to have a role in this project, primarily as an 

enforcement agency. We recently established as part of our reorganization a compliance enforcement program. Part of that compliance enforcement program will be to enforce against violators of 

the entry/exit system of NSEERS, of SEVIS. 

With respect to SEVIS, which is the student registration part of 

the entry/exit controls, that program still resides within BICE, 

managed within BICE, of course, cutting across agencies within 

BTS, primarily the inspections function at the border. 

There is an aggressive plan for certain implementation steps in 

U.S. VISIT, entry/exit, to be taken by December of 2003. I discussed the timing and the scheduling for those plans with the folks 

at the U.S. VISIT program. They assured me that they were on 

target to meet that deadline for December 2003. 

My experience with the program, with SEVIS, with entry/exit, is 

that the biggest challenge clearly is technology and building the infrastructure at our ports and our borders that will support the 

entry/exit concept. I think the biggest challenge there lies in the 

exit function. This country before 9/11 was not equipped to register 

particularly people who came here to visit and then exited the 

country. On the Northern border in particular, we had facilities 

and have facilities that are ill-equipped to do that. And as part of 

the assessment of U.S. VISIT, much work has been done in looking 

at those facilities and what will be needed to meet the deadlines 

there. 

But I see the biggest challenge being the technology to control 

the exit/entry and the infrastructure that we need, primarily on the 

exit side of entry/exit, to get that system operating 100 percent. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. You mentioned SEVIS, and August 1, 2003, 

is the statutory deadline for a school to submit information on student visas and exchange students into the SEVIS database. Can 

22

you give us an update on whether or not that deadline is going to 

be met? And, also, how will your Bureau interface with the Bureau 

of Citizenship and Immigration Services with regard to SEVIS? 

Mr. GARCIA. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. With respect to the deadline, implementation of SEVIS has been done on a rolling basis. 

There were January deadlines for prospective students which were 

met so that all students, new students at these colleges going forward would be entered into the SEVIS database through this Webbased system. 

The August 1st deadline applies to ongoing students, so students 

who were in prior classes that have not been entered into the system yet. The deadline for that is August 1. We have made substantial progress on that deadline. In checking that for this hearing, I 

was told that of the 1,600, I think, approximately, institutions that 

are still in the pipeline here for August 1, more than 1,200 were 

later filers or people who didn’t—institutions that didn’t file with 

the appropriate fee. We’re doing everything we can to get those on 

board by August 1, but they didn’t meet for getting their applications in. The other schools have been prioritized, and we hope to 

meet the deadline for all those who applied in a timely way to get 

on the system. 

That being said, it’s also a rolling process, so that if the school 

meets the deadline August 3rd and their student comes in August 

4th, they would be admitted. They wouldn’t have a problem. But 

we are working hard to prioritize the schools. We are working hard 

to get those into the system that haven’t met the deadlines for applying. 

With respect to our relationship with BCIS, BCIS is primarily responsible in this context for adjustments of status with respect to 

the students. The schools issue the I–20’s to have the students 

come into the country to attend school. If after the course of study 

or at some period therein a student wishes to adjust his status to 

get worker status or some other type of relief entitling him to work 

or to stay longer in this country, they would apply through BCIS. 

BCIS would adjudicate that application, and we would be guided 

by BCIS’ decision in that case. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Senator Leahy? 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My own statement I 

will place in the record. 

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

Senator LEAHY. And as I am fast losing my voice here, you may 

have been confused by my compressing two things together. When 

I referred to the testimony before the Government Operations, I 

was referring to the testimony about your agency being involved in 

the political actions between members of the Texas Legislature. 

And on June 16th at 11:00 p.m., about 12 hours before the Governmental Affairs Committee met to consider your nomination, you 

said you were directed by the IG’s office not to answer their questions. But the Assistant IG for Investigations reported that she told 

your principal legal adviser, Mark Wallace, earlier that day that no 

one had directed you or anyone else what to say. 

Is there a conflict there that you would like to clear up? 

23

Mr. GARCIA. There is something I would like to clarify, Senator, 

and I appreciate— 

Senator LEAHY. I thought you might. 

Mr. GARCIA. I appreciate the opportunity to do so. I understood 

that you were referring to two different IG reports in your earlier 

statement. This refers to the inquiry into what happened down at 

AMIC, the Air–Marine facility out on the West Coast. When I was 

in front of the Government Affairs Committee, I was initially asked 

some questions on that prior to the hearing. On May 30th, I submitted a written response indicating that because the matter was 

pending before the IG, I didn’t believe it was appropriate to comment. I made the same representation on June 2nd in a staff interview, Government Affairs staffers. They asked what I based that 

on. I said it was based primarily on my experience as a prosecutor, 

knowing the sensitivities of an ongoing criminal investigation. 

At that time the minority counsel expressed disagreement with 

that view and said, in fact, there was law related to Senate inquiries that I was unaware of. That was on June 2nd. 

I was also aware that Secretary Ridge in a hearing in front of 

the House prior to that time, I believe in late May, had also declined to answer based on the ongoing criminal investigation into 

the matter. 

After the June 2nd interview, I went through my legal counsel, 

through counsel to the Department, to the IG to get clarification 

given the continuing interest and given the representations of minority counsel at the staff meeting. At that time I was sent an email from the—through the counsel from the counsel to the Inspector General, which stated—and I read verbatim—‘‘Attached is language that Mr. Garcia can use if questioned on the Texas State 

Legislature issue’’—‘‘legislators issue.’’ 

The attachment reads, ‘‘The OIG has asked that any questions 

relating to this matter be directed to them.’’ I received that on June 

4th. At the same time, through the chief legal officer at DHS— 

Senator LEAHY. Just because I think in reading in all this—I will 

let you submit it for the record—we are going to be way past the 

time to even answer the question. By June 16th—you just mentioned June 4th. By June 16th, a week and a half later, it had been 

cleared up there was on restraint, if I am correct, from the IG’s office for you to answer questions. Is that correct? 

Mr. GARCIA. Yes. 

Senator LEAHY. But you still didn’t want to answer questions. 

Mr. GARCIA. No. I did answer the questions on that date, Senator. If you look at my June 16th response— 

Senator LEAHY. You were directed at that time—you said you 

had been directed by the IG not to answer questions. 

Mr. GARCIA. That’s correct. 

Senator LEAHY. But, in fact, by that time it was all right for you 

to answer questions. 

Mr. GARCIA. That’s correct. And I did at that time answer questions. 

Senator LEAHY. Let me ask you just one basic question. Will you 

make sure that they not be involved in this? I mean, this is kind 

of penny-ante political actions of using the Federal Government on 

things like this. I mean, I don’t care whether it is involving RepubVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:38 Feb 12, 2004 Jkt 091347 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91347.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
24

licans or Democrats. It detracts very much from both the legitimacy of your agency, but also it detracts very, very much from the 

confidence the American public has to have in an agency that is 

supposed to be outside of partisan politics. 

Mr. GARCIA. Senator, if I might briefly reply. One, I agree with 

you, and I also regret any confusion over the communications with 

respect to my answers in the prior committee. I do think we need 

to do a better job internally of communicating that way. I’m glad 

I had the opportunity to answer the questions. 

I agree with you that misuse of any Government resources, particularly homeland security resources, is an egregious matter. The 

allegation that that was done is what prompted me to refer that 

matter to the Inspector General. I was very relieved to see the Inspector General’s report and the conclusions therein. Nevertheless, 

I directed that a management review take place over at AMIC to 

make sure that our procedures, while followed, were the appropriate ones to have in place. I was subsequently notified by the IG’s 

office that they would like to do that review and to stand down, 

which, of course, I will and cooperate with the IG’s review in any 

way. 

I take these allegations very seriously. I take the role of the IG 

very seriously. And my responses to the prior questions were in no 

way meant to be disrespectful or non-responsive to the Committee’s 

inquiries. But given my background and what I understood to be 

the rules regarding a potential criminal inquiry by the Inspector 

General—and I do regret any confusion that was caused and the 

miscommunication surrounding that position, and I take responsibility for some of that confusion. 

Senator LEAHY. Well, I will submit the rest of my questions for 

the record, Mr. Chairman. I would just suggest one thing to the 

nominee. In the past, the Department of Justice has been reluctant 

to get involved in prosecuting some of these cases. We find that 

there have ben fraudulent applications, there may be a dozen 

fraudulent applications, and if you kind of follow the thread back, 

it is one person who sort of organized them all. 

Might I recommend—I know in our State, I have checked with 

the U.S. Attorney, and they are perfectly willing to prosecute these 

if Justice would let them. Go and bring some prosecutions. You 

have got somebody who is putting together some kind of shop 

where they are lining up a dozen, two dozen, three dozen people 

to make fraudulent applications, I am not so much concerned about 

throwing the people out who have probably been duped the whole 

way down the line, but figure out some way to go and get the ones 

doing it. And I think if you did a half dozen of those prosecutions, 

you are going to find your life and your inspectors’ lives are going 

to be a lot easier. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LEAHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Thank you. 

Senator Kennedy has joined us. Senator Kennedy, if you want to 

make any statement, we will be happy to hear from you, and it will 

not be charged to your questioning time, although we are going to 

grant leeway with respect to questions. So feel free. 

25

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

want to thank you for calling today’s hearing on Mr. Garcia’s nomination. And I would like to put sort of the opening comments in 

the record. I want to just underline a few of the points. 

As Mr. Garcia understands, we have had a long interest on 

issues of immigration policy here in this Committee. We know you 

have 500 million people that are coming in or out of the United 

States every single year. And so what we are trying to understand 

is how we are going to ensure that those that pose a particular 

threat to the United States are going to be able to be identified; 

and, on the other hand, to also understand the importance that so 

many of those that do come in and out of the United States are 

members of families, have legitimate interests, great friends of the 

United States, and want to be able to at least, according to the law, 

to carry forward their particular kind of mission here in the United 

States. 

So this is a tough issue, and we have tried to work with the 

agency over a period of time. We have acted on the issues of border 

security, bringing in new kinds of coordination of computers, and 

also have been strongly supportive of the intelligence agency working with the FBI and the development of the watch list to get information to immigration personnel so that they are going to be able 

to make judgments in local communities and support their efforts 

so that they can do the job, which in too many instances in the past 

has not been the case. 

And we know that you are going to be challenged as you move 

through in terms of the development of all these new technologies. 

You are going to be also selecting other kinds of new technologies 

to help to try and carry forward your own agency to be able to do 

it more completely. So these are going to be the kinds of issues you 

are going to be faced with that sort of no one in the past has had 

to deal with it. You have had obviously an impressive past in terms 

of the apprehension and prosecution of the individuals who have 

violated the laws. 

I am interested initially in hearing you out—and I know that 

some of these you have reviewed with the Governmental Affairs 

Committee, but I am interested in hearing you out on how you are 

going to be able to coordinate the various Bureaus, the three different Bureaus. I would like to also hear you out a little bit about 

the role that you play in terms of then service agencies, how you 

view the service agencies in this kind of function, how we are going 

to be able to coordinate policy, how we are going to ensure that the 

agencies are having similar instructions to those workers in the 

field, and also if you could talk a little bit about how you look at 

the service agencies. I am interested in that. And then I want to 

come back to the issues on unaccompanied immigrant children and 

some others. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Senator. You touch on a very important 

issue here in terms of communication, and I would break it down 

as you suggest into two parts. It’s a challenge in the Department 

of Homeland Security coordinating immigration policy in that what 

was INS has split not only into three—mainly three separate agenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:38 Feb 12, 2004 Jkt 091347 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91347.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
26

cies, two of those agencies reside within BTS Directorate, while the 

services—BCIS—agency headed by Director Aguirre reports directly to the Secretary. So there’s communication to be done between BICE and BCBP, the border agency within BTS, and as you 

mention, communication to be done with BCIS, primarily the services agency, which is in a separate Directorate. 

With respect to BCBP, in many ways less of a challenge residing 

under the same Directorate, participating in policy councils weekly 

with Under Secretary Hutchinson, I also meet regularly with Commissioner Bonner, and we have working groups at a very high level 

working together. In fact, as we exchanged basically personnel, 

that has raised very specific issues with respect to the functioning 

of our two Bureaus. 

With respect to BCIS, Director Aguirre’s operation, agency, as I 

mentioned before, this is a different challenge given that we cut 

across agency lines. A number of things go into a good relationship, 

a good working relationship and good communication with that 

agency in my view. One, it obviously starts at the top. Director 

Aguirre and I have known each other since before he came on 

board—slightly before he came on board, as we met when he was 

in the process, developed a very good personal relationship, are on 

the same floor of the building, and meet frequently informally to 

discuss issues that affect our respective agencies. I think it’s important to formalize that and have been meaning to meet with him to 

set up a type of more formal meeting arrangement, particularly if 

he moves on to a different facility. But right now we have constant 

contact within the building and a very good personal relationship, 

which I know he also enjoys with the Under Secretary, Under Secretary Hutchinson. 

We also have each appointed high-level representatives. Mona 

Raghib is my representative who works with BCIS on policy issues, 

on issues going forward that affect both agencies. She deals with 

her counterpart. They both have direct access to the principals, to 

Mr. Aguirre and to me. 

In addition, we have set up a number of working groups to look 

at issues ranging from legal issues as we look at our legal shop, 

personnel issues, administrative support issues, incredibly complex 

areas, incredibly important to the functioning of each agency, complex because of the nature of the break as we went into DHS. 

My view of the services agency, of Director Aguirre’s agency, is 

tremendous respect for what they do. I had some authority over 

those functions for a brief period of time, approximately 4 months, 

as Acting Commissioner of INS. I know how dedicated those workers are. I know the challenges that they face. I know the workload 

that they face. I appreciate the work that Director Aguirre is doing 

to try to facilitate some of the application processes involved in 

benefits adjudication that he works with. 

I understand the need for us to communicate both in terms of information that services side needs from us and in terms of information that we need on services side in our work. I think there needs 

to be still a great level of coordination and communication, both at 

headquarters and in the field. I think one of the pros is that in 

many areas, most areas, we are still collocated in the field and still 

share support services in the field, making the physical connection 

27

there. But I believe, as I do with BCBP, that as we go forward 

probably more of the work we do between agencies will have to be 

memorialized in terms of agreements we work out for procedures. 

You know, many of them still function as a result of good personal relationships that have developed over the years, particularly 

with services, BCBP, where people were in the same agency before. 

But we need to formalize that good working relationship for the future. 

Senator KENNEDY. Will the Policies and the Services Bureau be 

reviewed by the Enforcement Bureau— 

Mr. GARCIA. Senator— 

Senator KENNEDY. —before they are implemented? And when 

conflicts arise, how will these be decided? 

Mr. GARCIA. Excuse me. I didn’t mean to interrupt. There’s no 

formal review by BICE of BCIS policies. There are policy personnel 

in BTS, in my Bureau as well as in Eduardo Aguirre’s Bureau that 

speak to each other. It would be the situation that I would see, if 

there is a conflict, as we are talking, that that would be elevated 

up at least to the level of Asa Hutchinson and Director Aguirre to 

resolve and their policy folks to resolve. I think we’ve done a good 

job so far of communicating and coordinating, and I haven’t seen 

that level of elevation come about. 

Senator KENNEDY. The Homeland Security Act established the 

position of an ombudsman who is responsible for identifying the 

problems, proposing changes by the service Bureaus’ practices and 

its dealing with the individuals. I understand you do not support 

extending ombudsman responsibilities to enforcement issues in 

your Bureau. 

Mr. GARCIA. That’s correct. That is my prior answer to that question, Senator, and if I could briefly explain why. I value the role 

of ombudsman. I value the role of oversight, integrity oversight. I 

think particularly in a law enforcement agency—and I have said 

this when I have spoken publicly to our folks—what we have is our 

integrity. If you lose that, you lose your effectiveness as an enforcement agency. 

We have a very robust internal affairs program that we have inherited from Customs, former Customs Service, close to 200 agents 

in that program who do that work. We also have an internal audit 

function both from prior Customs Service, prior INS, that look at 

procedures and processes in the field and at headquarters. I strongly support that. I think that will probably need to be enhanced as 

we look at the client base we are serving and if we are going to 

serve across agency borders to look at that. 

We also have a new IG relationship and a new MOU with the 

IG in terms of criminal cases we refer and important non-criminal 

cases that we refer to the IG, a more encompassing docket for the 

IG, I believe, which also impacts our IA function. But I believe that 

that new IG function as well as our robust internal affairs and 

audit functions serve the oversight, integrity insurance functions 

that the ombudsman would serve at the BCIS side. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I think you have certainly outlined 

those agencies which will be monitoring and reviewing the function. But I suppose it is still of value—I would think still be of 

value to have sort of that independence be available, accessible to 

28

you to give you the best judgment as to how in the areas of enforcement the whole institution is working. But we will work with you 

on this down the line and see where we are. 

I am interested in that OIG report. As you are aware, they released the report on the September 11th detainees and found significant problems in the way detainees were handled, and the Department of Justice used the terrorism excuse to adopt harsh tactics that trampled on the rights and liberties of immigrants, and 

their detention is now the responsibility of your Bureau. 

What steps is the Bureau taking to see that the problem found 

by the report are corrected? As I understand, you are going to do 

a review of the report, and I think you said you were going to report to the Governmental Affairs Committee within 60 or 90 days. 

Are we going to get a copy of that report as well? Could we get a 

copy of that report? 

Mr. GARCIA. Certainly, Senator. I will make sure that you do. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Let’s make sure we do. 

Senator KENNEDY. Good. But let me just ask you what is your 

own preliminary reaction to this report and— 

Mr. GARCIA. I—I’m sorry, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. And what are you doing about it before you 

get your own report or you are waiting for it? What is the story? 

Mr. GARCIA. Sure, Senator, I’d be happy to. One, obviously I have 

studied the report. I think it’s a very important document. It highlights, obviously, the conditions and the time these actions were 

taken, a unique time in our country’s history, unfortunately. 

I take nothing more serious than allegations of abusing people 

who are on detention. I found that the most disturbing. I think 

that we are—we will respond to each of the recommendations and 

in the preliminary stage going through it concur with, if not all, 

nearly all of those recommendations. In fact, since we have seen 

some of the preliminary work on that report, we have already been 

taking steps to address some of the concerns. 

With respect to detainees, although the detention and removal 

facility there that was studied in Passaic, I believe, generally fared 

fairly well in terms of treatment and in terms of access to counsel, 

there was criticism that there was no formal detention standard 

that required visitation weekly to these contract facilities. That detention standard has been drafted. It’s in the process of being reviewed. And, in fact, my understanding is we are doing those reviews now, but we are going to have a formal detention standard 

in place. 

With respect to getting information for bail hearings, where 

there was criticism in the report that the FBI and DOJ and INS 

were holding people without bail, without supporting information, 

in the recent Liberty Shield time frame where we had people held 

in detention, we required written communication from the FBI if 

they were going to ask us to hold someone without bail for their 

own—you know, for reason of their own. Otherwise, we went forward based on the facts and circumstances of the case as we understood them. 

So we are working towards addressing implementing changes 

based on that report. I welcome the report. I think it’s part of the 

process we were just discussing. Actions are taken. A time of inVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:38 Feb 12, 2004 Jkt 091347 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91347.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
29

credible pressure in this country following the 9/11 attacks, an Inspector General that does a thorough job of reviewing those facts 

and circumstances and makes recommendations, I find that evidence of the way the system works, and we take it very seriously. 

We’d be happy to provide the specifics of our response that we’re 

going to provide to the Government Affairs Committee. And as I 

said, we concur with those recommendations, if not totally, almost 

completely. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I appreciate that. So you will let us 

know what that report is and give us a copy, and then you are 

going to give us a reaction to the recommendations of each of the— 

Mr. GARCIA. Yes, Senator. And just to add, as you say, much of 

this falls within my Bureau, but we’re also committed to working 

with the Department of Justice, obviously has a role in this area 

going forward. We are trying to draft an MOU, as suggested in the 

report. We’ve had contact with DOJ through the Department of 

Homeland Security, and I look forward to working with my colleagues in DOJ. 

Senator KENNEDY. On these proposed detention standards, I 

don’t know what your—are they being just decided in the Department? Have you gotten any outside guidance on those? 

Mr. GARCIA. My understanding is they’re an internal standard, 

and I’ll make sure this is— 

Senator KENNEDY. You might find out—I don’t know the extent. 

I should know the answer. I don’t—whether they have ever asked 

or whether any Justice Departments have asked for any input by 

the Committees in the development of these, or maybe it is just 

completely internal. But there may be some suggestions on this. 

You can take a look at it and let us know. 

Mr. GARCIA. I don’t know the answer to that. We’ll find out, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. On our National security entry/exit registration, NSEERS, it required Muslim and Arab visa holders who were 

students, workers, researchers, and tourists to be fingerprinted, 

photographed, and questioned. Is it effective to target persons 

based on their religion or national origin rather than specific evidence of criminal activity or connection with a terrorist organization? Is this an effective use of resources? And what effect is it having on the Arabs and Muslims whose cooperation we need more 

than ever in the battle against terrorism? 

Mr. GARCIA. Senator, NSEERS had a list of countries whose nationals were required to register in the categories that you mentioned—visitors—and also required registration based on specific 

criteria. One of the public criteria that has been discussed is travel 

patterns. So, for example, if someone had a travel pattern perhaps 

indicating travel to Afghanistan, they were also required to register 

regardless of their nationality. But it was certainly not race- or religion-based in any way. 

I appreciate that that system—and it’s ongoing in terms of the 

port of entry—raises sensitivities, raises concerns. I believe that everyone—the vast, vast majority of the folks we encounter are lawabiding. Everyone needs to be treated with dignity and respect. I 

understand that it raises issues in terms of feeling in the community. We have done work, outreach work, and, quite frankly, SenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:38 Feb 12, 2004 Jkt 091347 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\91347.TXT SJUD4 PsN: CMORC
30

ator, when I first came in to INS and we had the first domestic registration out in California, it wasn’t handled appropriately. And 

there were problems in Los Angeles and detention issues that, 

going forward, we tried to put resources there, give people the ability to basically say come back at a later time and avoid the problems we saw in Los Angeles in that early registration period, which 

I think we successfully did. 

I think it’s an effective measure, an effective tool in gaining control of the border in terms of entry/exit. It has a number of different values: one, in terms of public safety and a number of criminals were apprehended, and I think the number is upwards of 140 

in the process; and, two, in making sure that we screen folks who 

might pose a national security concern, and there are a number of 

individuals who did pose concerns that were, I think, primarily 

turned away at the border and ports of entry. So it had a dual role 

in my mind, although—and an effective role, although I do understand that it raises a number of issues that we must be sensitive 

to. 

Senator KENNEDY. I appreciate your comments on it because you 

have obviously thought about it. But I am just wondering whether 

you are forgetting the results in terms of evaluation. That is certainly one part. But the spin-off that it has at a time that you are 

trying to recruit individuals in various groups in different populations is certainly something that you want to give attention to as 

well. 

I thank the Chair. I just have two more questions. 

In the IG’s report, were you surprised at the end, after all of the 

detainees on immigration issues, that there weren’t any—that all 

they had, at least as I understand it, were violations of immigration law and not the association in terms of terrorist activity? 

Mr. GARCIA. Well, as I understand it, it was a sample of about 

760 or so. Was I surprised? And I’ll answer this based on my background. No, I wasn’t surprised. Terrorism charges are very difficult 

to make. I don’t want to say that 760 people with association with 

terrorism couldn’t be proved. Given the way the procedure went 

forward as outlined in the report, some of these folks clearly were 

taken into custody as a result of leads that in the end didn’t seem 

to have much to do with the 9/11 attacks. So it doesn’t surprise me 

then at the end there was no connection to terrorism there, and 

that’s one of the criticisms the IG made, that there needed to be 

a better parsing or organization putting people into high risk when 

there really were facts and circumstances to support that categorization. So I think in that sense that result is fairly predictable. 

Also, this was an exercise in disruption, and if—it’s very hard to 

prove a negative. There were no attacks, and there were no followup bombings. There was the anthrax attacks. But in terms of 

bombings, there were not. And it’s very hard to prove any connection there. But, again, it’s hard to disprove a connection between 

a disruptive exercise and the fact that you did not have follow-up 

attacks. 

Senator KENNEDY. Just finally on the issue of unaccompanied 

minor children. The Security Act transferred issues relating to unaccompanied alien children from Immigration and Naturalization 

31

to the Office of Refugee Resettlement because that office has the 

expertise to work with children. And the Department of Homeland 

Security would focus on law enforcement functions. Obviously, 

these responsibilities overlap in some cases. 

It is my understanding the Office of Refugee Resettlement has 

not had the full cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security in negotiating a memorandum of understanding on their respective responsibilities for protecting unaccompanied children. 

Passing the Act, Congress clearly intended ORR to have all care, 

custody, and placement responsibility for 5,000 children each year 

who are detained for longer than 72 hours in order for them to seek 

immigration relief. Many other children are arrested each year by 

the Department of Homeland Security. Most of them from Mexico 

and Canada are repatriated within hours upon a request for voluntary departure. 

Can you tell us about what is holding up the agreement? 

Mr. GARCIA. Yes, Senator. Thank you. I know— 

Senator KENNEDY. And will the DHS resolve the remaining 

issues and the best interests, putting the interests of children first? 

Mr. GARCIA. First let me say I know and appreciate your interest 

and leadership on this issue. DHS fully supports the transfer of 

this function to ORR and HHS, and, in fact, has been working very 

hard to transfer that function over. You know, in the March time 

period, we transferred $20 million, 20 FTEs fully funded, including 

7 full-time positions on board at headquarters that were responsible for this program over to ORR. That being done, we still have 

not had full assumption of the responsibilities of that program by 

ORR. 

The sticking point seems to be to me the fact that ORR does not 

want to become involved in the transportation of the minors. I see 

that as a key element of what you and Congress, you, Senator, and 

Congress had in mind in transferring that program over. And 

many times INS has been criticized for the transportation function 

of minors. 

I see that part of it also going to ORR along with the budget and 

the position. At the moment, as you point out, the key has to be 

taking care of the children who come in. So we are performing that 

function. In many cases, we are assigning people to facilities where 

ORR won’t certify the facility, but there’s nowhere else to place the 

child. So we still assume responsibility for placement. 

I believe these are important issues that need to be worked out. 

I have talked to the group working on this. I’ve asked them if they 

cannot make progress now to begin to elevate this, DHS certainly 

has an interest in seeing this program where it belongs. I certainly 

have an interest in doing an orderly transfer but, most importantly, seeing the children that come in as unaccompanied minors 

are properly cared for. So I would— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, if you could give it a little personal attention— 

Mr. GARCIA. I certainly will. 

Senator KENNEDY. —when you return, I would be very, very 

grateful to you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate very much the 

answers to these questions. These are complicated, difficult issues, 

32

but they affect real people, real lives, and we want to work with 

you on these issues and others. We congratulate you on your appointment. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Garcia, even though it is in its infancy, 

certainly the Department of Homeland Security is already one of 

the most significant agencies in our country because, as Senator 

Kennedy says, it involves protecting the safety and security of 

Americans. And I am pleased that people of your caliber are willing 

to step forward and provide public service in the capacity which 

you have been and I am confident will continue to do. 

At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent that we close 

the record in 48 hours for questions to be submitted, and Senator 

Leahy has already indicated he has some additional questions, so 

if minority staff will make sure that he understands that those 

need to be submitted within 48 hours. 

Also, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include any Senators’ statements in the record. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Mr. Garcia, thank you very much. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to have to depart 

from the hearing, but I wanted to just add my welcome to Mr. 

Goldsmith. I would like to be able to submit my questions if I could 

to him, and I want both him and the Committee to know that all 

of us have a very keen awareness of the importance of OLC. It is 

an extremely important responsibility and job, and we look forward 

to working with him. But I thank you very much for the opportunity to submit questions. We will do this in a timely way and a 

way which will not delay the consideration of the nominee. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Is 48 hours sufficient for you to do that? 

Senator KENNEDY. Forty-eight hours is fine. 

Well, could I consult with you on the 48 hours? 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I am sorry. I misunderstood. 

Senator KENNEDY. I apologize. We both need our marching orders here. We will try to do it in a timely way and will talk with 

you about it. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Sure. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. Mr. Goldsmith, if you would come forward, 

please, sir. If you will raise your right hand before you sit down, 

please, sir? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to 

give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and 

nothing but the truth? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Yes, sir. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. I would like to welcome Mr. Jack Goldsmith, 

who is the nominee to be the Assistant Attorney General at the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice. Most recently, 

Mr. Goldsmith has served as special counsel in the General Counsel’s Office at the Department of Defense. Since 1994, Mr. Goldsmith has been a law professor at the University of Virginia Law 

School. Mr. Goldsmith has had an impressive legal career, having 

clerked for Fourth Circuit Judge Harvie Wilkinson, then clerked for 

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, after which he went 

on to his third judicial clerkship at the Iran–U.S. Claims Tribunal. 

33

Mr. Goldsmith graduated from Washington and Lee University 

summa cum laude, received a master’s degree at Oxford University, first-class honors, and received his J.D. from Yale Law School. 

It is hard to improve on Mr. Goldsmith’s background. I am sure 

he will serve the Department of Justice and the President of the 

United States very well. 

Mr. Goldsmith, we welcome you here today. We will be happy to 

submit any written statement that you wish to submit for the 

record, and we will be glad to take any summary of your written 

statement if you want to do so at this time. 

STATEMENT OF JACK LANDMAN GOLDSMITH III, NOMINEE TO 

BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL 

COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’d just 

like to make a few thank-you’s if I could. First of all, to you and 

this Committee for having this hearing to consider my nomination. 

I’d also like to thank the President and the Attorney General for 

nominating to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel. I’d like to thank Senator Allen for his kind introductory remarks. And last, but not least, I’d like to thank my family for traveling from all around the country to be here with me today and for 

their unceasing support. 

I have no further statement, sir. 

[The biographical information of Jack Goldsmith III follows:]

34


91347.013
35


91347.014
36


91347.015
37


91347.016
38


91347.017
39


91347.018
40


91347.019
41


91347.020
42


91347.021
43


91347.022
44


91347.023
45


91347.024
46


91347.025
47


91347.026
48


91347.027
49


91347.028
50


91347.029
51


91347.030
52


91347.031
53


91347.032
54


91347.033
55


91347.034
56


91347.035
57


91347.036
58


91347.037
59


91347.038
60


91347.039
61


91347.040
62


91347.041
63


91347.042
64


91347.043
65


91347.044
66

Senator CHAMBLISS. Well, I have just a couple of things I want 

to ask you about. 

As legal counsel, you are going to be asked to participate in all 

of the significant challenges facing the Justice Department: review 

of Executive orders and Presidential proclamations, provide legal 

advice to the executive branch on constitutional questions and review legislation. That is a substantial workload and a very heavy 

responsibility being placed on your, Mr. Goldsmith. Would you care 

to comment on how you will accomplish all you are asked to do? 

Would you outline your priorities as head of the Office of Legal 

Counsel? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a heavy 

responsibility, sir, and it’s one I take very seriously. My main goal, 

if confirmed as head of Office of Legal Counsel, would be to continue the extraordinary traditions of the office in providing objective legal advice, independent of any political considerations. That 

is the—in my opinion and in the opinion of all of the former heads 

of OLC that I’ve consulted with, that is the main task of the office, 

the primary responsibility, and it’s something that I assure you I’ll 

always keep in mind in everything I do there. 

More generally, sir, my job, if confirmed, would be to provide 

first-rate legal advice to the Attorney General primarily, and as his 

delegate, to the other heads, to the other departments on legal 

issues that arise, and to do so in a timely fashion. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. You are presently serving as special counsel 

to the general counsel in the Department of Defense. In that capacity, I presume you played a significant role in the war against terrorism. In addition to these issues, would you outline other responsibilities as well—substantive as well as management responsibilities that you are going to undertake in your new position? 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Sir, most of my substantive responsibilities will 

be defined by the tasks I’m asked to perform. It will depend on 

what the Attorney General asks me to do and what the other departments in the executive branch—the specific legal advice they 

seek. As to substance, it really depends on what we’re asked to do. 

As to management, the Office of Legal Counsel is blessed with 

an extraordinary group of lawyers, very hard-working lawyers, and 

my goal will be to make sure that they continue to produce the 

first-rate legal advice that they’ve always provided. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. All right. Well, Mr. Goldsmith, I think you 

are fortunate. It looks like everybody ran off and left us. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CHAMBLISS. You have outlined the questions that I had, 

and it is the custom of the Committee that the record remain open 

for 7 days for questions to be submitted, so I am certain that there 

will be other questions that will be forthcoming. But unless anybody has anything further, we will close the hearing at this time. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CHAMBLISS. We look forward to moving ahead with your 

nomination. 

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Thank you, sir. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

67


91347.045
68


91347.046
69


91347.047
70


91347.048
71


91347.049
72


91347.050
73


91347.051
74


91347.052
75


91347.053
76


91347.054
77


91347.055
78


91347.056
79


91347.057
80


91347.058
81


91347.059
82


91347.060
83


91347.061
84


91347.062
85


91347.063
86


91347.064
87


91347.065
88


91347.066
89


91347.067
90


91347.068
91


91347.069
92


91347.070
93


91347.071
94


91347.072
95


91347.073
96


91347.074
97


91347.075
98


91347.076
99


91347.077
100


91347.078
101


91347.079
102


91347.080
103


91347.081
104


91347.082
105


91347.083
106


91347.084
107


91347.085
108


91347.086
109


91347.087
110


91347.088
111


91347.089
112


91347.090
113


91347.091
114


91347.092
115


91347.093
116


91347.094
117


91347.095
118


91347.096
119


91347.097
120


91347.098
121


91347.099
122


91347.100
123


91347.101
124


91347.102
125


91347.103
126

Æ


91347.104