Gonzales Testifies Before Senate Panel

SEN. ARLEN SPECTER, R-PA. RANKING MEMBER: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The purpose of this Senate oversight hearing is to determine this committee's judgment as to whether Attorney General Alberto Gonzales should continue in that capacity.

We are mindful of the difficulties and the achievements that Attorney General Gonzales had to surmount to become a Harvard Law graduate, become a Texas State Supreme Court justice, a White House counsel and now the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. A very distinguished record, indeed.

And we further appreciate your status as a role model as the first Hispanic attorney general, and well recall the historic occasion, January 4th of 2005, when you appeared at that table on your confirmation hearing.

As I see it, you come to this hearing with a heavy burden of proof to do three things: first, to reestablish your credibility; second, to justify the replacement of these United States attorneys; and third, to demonstrate that you can provide the leadership to the United States Department of Justice which has such a vital role in protecting our national interests and so many lives.

Notwithstanding demands for your resignation by Democrats and Republicans in the United States Senate and elsewhere, I have insisted both publicly and privately that you be given your so-called day in court to give your responses. You do so in the context of testimony from a number of people in the Department of Justice who have contradicted certain of your public statements.

You early said that you were not involved in any discussions, and then your subordinates testified to the contrary: that you were at meetings where discussions were undertaken about the replacement of these U.S. attorneys.

You then said that you did not see memoranda, and again your subordinates have testified under oath that you were at meetings where documents, memoranda, were distributed.

SPECTER: And then you modified your statement about the discussions to say that you were not involved in deliberations. And again, the testimony of three of your key subordinates -- your chief of staff, Kyle Sampson, the acting associate attorney general, Bill Mercer, and the director of the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Michael Battle -- have said that you were involved in deliberations and have done so with some particularity.

So that this is your opportunity, Mr. Attorney General, to tackle that burden of proof -- the heavy burden of proof to re-establish your credibility here.

With respect to the removal of United States attorneys, there is no doubt that the president can remove U.S. attorneys for no reason at all. And President Clinton did just that in 1993, when in one fell swoop he removed 93 United States attorneys.

But there cannot be a removal for a bad reason; that is if, as suggestions have been made, that U.S. Attorney Lam in San Diego was replaced because she was hot on the trail of confederates of former Congressman Duke Cunningham, who is now serving eight years in jail. Or a U.S. attorney may not be replaced if, as the allegations are made -- and until we've heard from you, Mr. Attorney General, I'm going to regard them as allegations. Until we hear from you, until we give you an opportunity to respond.