Gonzales Testifies Before House Judiciary Committee

Hearing on Oversight of the Department of Justice, May 10, 2007

SPEAKERS:

REP. JOHN CONYERS JR., D-MICH. CHAIRMAN

REP. HOWARD L. BERMAN, D-CALIF.

REP. RICK BOUCHER, D-VA.

REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y.

REP. ROBERT C. SCOTT, D-VA.

REP. MELVIN WATT, D-N.C.

REP. ZOE LOFGREN, D-CALIF.

REP. SHEILA JACKSON-LEE, D-TEXAS

REP. MAXINE WATERS, D-CALIF.

REP. MARTIN T. MEEHAN, D-MASS.

REP. BILL DELAHUNT, D-MASS.

REP. ROBERT WEXLER, D-FLA.

REP. LINDA T. SANCHEZ, D-CALIF.

REP. STEPHEN I. COHEN, D-TENN.

REP. HANK JOHNSON, D-GA.

REP. LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, D-ILL.

REP. BRAD SHERMAN, D-CALIF.

REP. ANTHONY WEINER, D-N.Y.

REP. ADAM B. SCHIFF, D-CALIF.

REP. ARTUR DAVIS, D-ALA.

REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ, D-FLA.

REP. KEITH ELLISON, D-MINN.

REP. LAMAR SMITH, R-TEXAS RANKING MEMBER

REP. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR., R-WIS.

REP. HOWARD COBLE, R-N.C.

REP. ELTON GALLEGLY, R-CALIF.

REP. ROBERT W. GOODLATTE, R-VA.

REP. STEVE CHABOT, R-OHIO

REP. DAN LUNGREN, R-CALIF.

REP. CHRIS CANNON, R-UTAH

REP. RIC KELLER, R-FLA.

REP. DARRELL ISSA, R-CALIF.

REP. MIKE PENCE, R-IND.

REP. J. RANDY FORBES, R-VA.

REP. STEVE KING, R-IOWA

REP. TOM FEENEY, R-FLA.

REP. TRENT FRANKS, R-ARIZ.

REP. LOUIE GOHMERT, R-TEXAS

REP. JIM JORDAN, R-OHIO

WITNESSES:

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALBERTO R. GONZALES

[*]

CONYERS: Good morning. The committee will come to order. Welcome, everyone.

Mr. Attorney General, I want to thank you for appearing before us today. It's my hope that the members will focus on -- their questions today on the United States attorney investigation and related matters, and that in the near future you will come back so that we may exercise our oversight responsibility, considering the many important issues that involve the Department of Justice.

I know I speak for every member of this panel when I say that we all want the Department of Justice to succeed in its mission as the premier law enforcement agency in the nation, and perhaps in the world.

The laws under your jurisdiction -- from civil rights, voting rights, to crime, to antitrust, to bankruptcy and the environment -- are among the most important charters of our society and are critical to our well-being as a nation and as a democracy.

At the same time, I am sure we agree -- you and I -- that any hint or indication that the department may not be acting fairly and impartially in enforcing the nation's laws, or in choosing the nation's law enforcers, has ramifications far beyond the department itself, and casts doubt upon every action or inaction your office and your employees take.

So, when we learn that several U.S. attorneys were added to the termination list only after they decided to pursue criminal investigations involving Republican officials, or after complaints that they were not pursuing investigations against Democrats, we must insist that we understand exactly how this came into existence and how the list itself of those discharged came into existence.

When we learn that most of the U.S. attorneys forced to resign were among the highest rated and most able in the nation, that they were told that they were being displaced to create a bigger Republican farm team while others were retained because they were, quote/unquote, "loyal Bushies," it creates the impression that the department has placed partisan interests above the public interest.

CONYERS: When a respected former career attorney at the Civil Rights Division testifies that he has been directed to alter performance evaluations based on political considerations, when I receive an anonymous letter, apparently from Department of Justice employees, complaining that candidates for career positions have been subjected to political litmus tests, and when the attorney general has secretly delegated his authority to hire and fire non-civil service employees, this calls into question the department's commitment to fair and impartial justice.

When the White House gives us a take-it-or-leave-it offer for a one-time, off-the-record interview, without transcripts, which I've referred to as "meet us at the pub for fish and chips so we can talk," which no self-respected investigator would accept, makes open-ended claims of executive privilege, and loses or destroys millions of e- mails relevant to our investigation, one asks whether the administration is trying to cover up two simple truths: who created the list and why.

And when we learned this morning, page one, Washington Post, that another U.S. attorney in Missouri was forced out, contrary to repeated assurances that the eight U.S. attorneys whose circumstances we've been examining for the past few months were the entire list, it makes us wonder when we will get the entire report -- truthful report about this matter.

CONYERS: Now, to those who might say that it is time to move on and end our investigation, allow me to remind you of a couple things.

The matters that have come to light to date are quite serious.

Sitting prosecutors have faced political pressure to bring or not bring cases. Numerous misstatements by senior officials regarding the firings have been made to Congress. The reputations of good and honest public servants have been besmirched. Former U.S. attorneys have been pressed not to cooperate with our investigation. And the Presidential Records Act and Hatch Act may have been violated.

But most important of all, however, the department's most precious asset, it's reputation for integrity and independence, has been called into question.

Until we get to the bottom of how this list was created and why, those doubts will persist.

I'm pleased now to turn to the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, my friend, the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Smith.

SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And welcome, Mr. Attorney General.

SMITH: We expect much of this hearing to focus on the U.S. attorneys controversy. We've investigated this situation for two months. We have nearly 10,000 pages of interview transcripts and documents. The public, the media and committee staff have all scoured them.

We have held three hearings, featuring 18 witnesses. We have had four subpoena markups, and have subpoenaed 12 individuals and many associated documents.

We have held 10 interviews, spanning more than 50 hours. We will soon hear from Monica Goodling, whose testimony we have taken the extraordinary step of immunizing. And, of course, we all have access to the testimony generated in the Senate.

As we have gone forward, the list of accusations has mushroomed. But the evidence of genuine wrongdoing has not.

Mr. Attorney General, this investigation may find that you and your staff did only what you were accused of at the start: the unremarkable and perfectly legal act of considering ordinary politics in the appointment and oversight of political appointees.

It amounts to the criminalization of politics, particularly the partisan criminalizing of the politics of this administration.

Mr. Attorney General, you and your staff have stated time and again that what you tried to undertake was a good government review of political appointees to identify where new appointees might do better.

You acknowledged that the White House was involved. Of course it was. The political appointees were theirs. So were the political priorities that the department was asked to focus on, such as gun crime and human trafficking.

By emphasizing that politics affected your motivations, your political opponents have tried to paint your exercise as something out of bounds.

SMITH: I do not want to belittle this controversy. Some serious questions remain unanswered. But we shouldn't kid ourselves. In an L.A. Times poll last month, 63 percent of Americans believed that Congress is pursuing this matter to gain partisan advantage.

Today is our first opportunity to see you since the tragedy of Virginia Tech. Two months ago, we marked the third anniversary of the terrorist attack in Spain. Today, a terrorist could cross our porous borders in California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas carrying deadly weapons.

Six months from now, on the anniversary of September 11th, I hope we don't find ourselves asking why we spent our time today asking you more questions about your hiring decisions.

What we need to do is wrap up the U.S. attorneys controversy. With one exception, we have concluded interviews of all the major department players in the controversy. We have you here to answer our questions today. All that is necessary with respect to the Department of Justice after today is to hear from Monica Goodling, and we will do that soon.

For nearly two months the White House has offered to let us interview its employees and review its documents. We need to take that offer now. If we had accepted it, our questions might have been answered long ago.

Mr. Attorney General, we trust that you will answer our questions to the best of your ability, and we look forward to your answers.

But we should not conduct an endless, piscine expedition. If there are no fish in this lake, we should reel in our lines of questions, dock our empty boat and turn to more pressing issues.

Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of my time.

CONYERS: Thank you very much, Lamar Smith.

We will accept all other members' opening statements to be included in the record at this point.

Welcome again, Attorney General Gonzales.

You've held this position since February 2005, and before that was White House counsel.

SMITH: You enlisted in the Air Force right out of high school, attending the Air Force Academy, finishing your undergraduate studies at Rice and earning your law degree at Harvard.

You spent a decade in private practice at the Houston law firm of Vinson & Elkins, and then in 1994 to serve as Governor-elect George Bush's general counsel, then secretary of state and later Texas Supreme Court justice, before coming to Washington in 2001.

Mr. Attorney General, we generally allow our witnesses five minutes to summarize or augment their written statement. And yours is included in the record. But because you are here today under unusual circumstances, we would like to give you flexibility to speak longer than that, if you care to.

And so we hope that you could address this morning's revelation at least one other former U.S. attorney belongs on the list that was forced out, and why we're hearing about the matter today from The Washington Post.

Again, on behalf of everybody on this committee, we welcome you and invite you to proceed in your own way.

SMITH: Mr. Chairman -- point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS: What's happening? Why?

SMITH: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the rules governing the decorum of a hearing, I've brought to the attention of the chairman the presence of a banner on the person of an individual placed in a position such that that person's banner would reveal -- be revealed every time cameras are on the witness.

This is not a star chamber. This is supposed to be a hearing. And I would make my point of order that that is an illegal protest in these hearings, and ask that the individual be removed before the attorney general begins his testimony.

CONYERS: I don't think there's anything wrong with that. And I invite the person who's identified to please excuse herself from these proceedings. This is not a political rally.

And with the right attire, you're perfectly welcome to reenter this chamber.

And don't make any statements please. Thank you.

PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)

CONYERS: Oh, come on now. We've done this too long. We've spent far too much time trying to resolve this.

Thanks a lot.

And I want everyone to know in the audience, please, no signs, no demonstrations, no exercise, for a few hours, of your First Amendment rights when we're having this important hearing.

SMITH: I thank the chair.

CONYERS: Thank you.

I apologize, Mr. Attorney General, and we invite you to proceed.

GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will take less than the five minutes but I'm grateful for the offer.

Chairman Conyers, Ranking Member Smith and members of the committee, I have provided the committee with a rather lengthy written statement detailing some of the department's work under my leadership to protect our nation, our children and our civil rights. I am proud of our past accomplishments in these and other areas, and I look forward to future achievements.

I am here, however, to answer your questions to the best of my ability and recollection, not to repeat what I have provided in writing.

Before we begin, I want to make three brief points about the resignations of the eight United States attorneys. These points are basically the same ones that I made before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month. My feelings and recollections about this matter have not changed since that time.

GONZALES: First, as I have said repeatedly, each of those United States attorneys are fine lawyers and dedicated public servants. I have publicly apologized to them and to their families for allowing this matter to become an unfortunate and undignified public spectacle, for which I accept full responsibility.

Second, as I have said before, I should have been more precise when discussing this matter. I understand why some of my statements generated confusion, and I have subsequently tried to clarify my words.

That said, I believe what matters most is that I've always sought the truth in every aspect of my professional and personal life. This matter has been no exception.

I've never sought to mislead or deceive the Congress or the American people. To the contrary, I have been extremely forthcoming with information, and I'm here today to continue to do my part to ensure that all facts about this matter are brought to light.

Finally, recognizing my limited involvement in the process -- a mistake that I freely acknowledge -- I have soberly questioned my prior decisions. I have reviewed the documents available to the Congress.

But please keep in mind that in deference to the integrity of the ongoing investigations, there is some information that I have not seen that you have seen.

I have also asked the deputy attorney general if I should reconsider my decisions.

What I have concluded is that although the process was not as rigorous or as structured as it should have been, and while reasonable people might decide things differently, my decision to ask for the resignations of these U.S. attorneys was not based on improper reasons, and, therefore, the decisions should stand.

I think we agree on what would be improper. It would be improper to remove a U.S. attorney to interfere with or influence a particular prosecution for partisan political gain. I did not do that. I would never do that.

Let me conclude by saying that I have learned important lessons from this experience which will guide me in my important responsibilities.

In recent weeks, I have met or spoken with all of our U.S. attorneys to hear their concerns. These discussions have been open and, quite frankly, very frank. Good ideas were generated and are being implemented.

I look forward to working with these men and women to pursue the great goals of our department.

I also look forward to working -- continuing to work with the department's career professionals, investigators, analysts, prosecutors, lawyers and administrative staff, who perform nearly all of the department's work and deserve the most credit for our accomplishments.

GONZALES: I want to continue working with this committee as well. We have made great strides in protecting our country from terrorism, defending our neighborhoods against the scourge of gangs and drugs, shielding our children from predators and preserving the public integrity of our public institutions.

I do not intend to allow recent events to deter us from our mission.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

Let me begin the questions.

I want to ask how the U.S. attorney termination list came to be, who suggested putting most of these U.S. attorneys on the list, and why.

Now, that's the question that overhangs everything we're doing here. If we can answer that, I think outside of the reticence of the White House to cooperate, we would make incredible gains in trying to put this matter to rest, as the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith, has suggested we do as soon as possible.

Tell me about it.

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, I accept full responsibility for the notion of doing an evaluation of the performance of United States attorneys.

I think as a matter of good government, we have an obligation as heads of the department to ensure that public servants are in fact doing their job.

And therefore, I directed Mr. Sampson -- my then deputy chief of staff, and most recently my former chief of staff -- to coordinate and organize a review of the performance of United States attorneys around the country.

GONZALES: I expected that Mr. Sampson would consult with the senior leadership of the department, that he would consult with individuals who would know about the performance about the United States attorneys much more than I.

CONYERS: But, Mr. Attorney General, you're the one who is here at the hearing.

GONZALES: Yes.

CONYERS: You're the one that we talk to as the Judiciary Committee regularly communicates with the head of the Department of Justice. I approve and congratulate you on all those hearings, and investigation.

But tell me -- just tell me -- how the U.S. attorney termination list came to be and who suggested putting most of these U.S. attorneys on the list and why. Now, that should take about three sentences, but take more. But tell me something.

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that what Mr. Sampson engaged in was a process of consulting with the senior leadership in the department about the performance of specific individuals, and that toward the end of that process, in the fall of 2006, what was presented to me was a recommendation that I understood to be the consensus recommendation of the senior leadership of the department.

CONYERS: OK. In other words, you don't know. And I'm not putting words in your mouth, but you haven't answered the question.

I know the procedure, but look, we've got 30-something members of Congress, much of your staff, you've prepared for this, you've been asked something like this question before now...

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, if I may respond to that, as I've indicated, I have not gone back and spoken directly with Mr. Sampson and others who are involved in this process, in order to protect the integrity of this investigation and the investigation of the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General.

I am a fact witness, they are fact witnesses and in order to preserve the integrity of those investigations, I have not asked these specific questions. What I'm here today...

CONYERS: OK, so that's why you're not going to answer the question, because you want to protect the integrity of the investigation.

Look, let me ask you a specific example. Mr. Iglesias...

GONZALES: Iglesias.

CONYERS: ... in New Mexico, who was not put on the termination list until October or November of 2006, we learned in last Friday's interview with your counsel, Matthew Friedgen (ph), at the request of the White House and Monica Goodling, he met with two prominent New Mexico lawyers who complained about Mr. Iglesias' handling of a vote fraud case.

CONYERS: He met them again in November. And they told him they didn't want him -- Mr. Iglesias -- to be the U.S. attorney. And then they said they were working toward that, and they had communicated about that directly with Senator Domenici and Karl Rove.

Aware of that, are you?

GONZALES: I'm certainly aware of it now.

And if I may, Mr. Chairman, if you're going to rely upon some testimony that others have provided -- again, I haven't spoken to others about their testimony -- could I see what in fact the testimony's been provided to? Because I haven't seen it. So...

CONYERS: Just take this recitation that I've just given you, sir.

We're perfectly willing to let you see anything you want. We're cooperating. But cooperate with us.

GONZALES: I'm trying, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS: OK.

So is this correct?

GONZALES: I have no reason to believe it's not correct, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS: OK.

You were aware of that, then.

GONZALES: You mean, at the time that I made my decision?

CONYERS: Yes.

GONZALES: At the time I accepted the recommendation -- Mr. Chairman, I don't recall whether or not I was aware of that.

But I will tell you this: I was certainly aware of the fact that the senior senator had lost confidence in Mr. Iglesias beginning in the fall of 2005, and that we had had several phone conversations where he had expressed serious concerns or reservations about the performance of the person that he recommended for that position.

CONYERS: Yes. And they had communicated directly with Karl Rove and Senator Domenici.

You were aware of that?

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman...

CONYERS: No. You're not -- you're not under oath.

CONYERS: And you said you always tell the truth.

GONZALES: My answers would be the same, Mr. Chairman. I want to be sure that I give the committee the most accurate and most complete answer that...

CONYERS: Yes. So, what are you saying?

GONZALES: Well, what I know is...

CONYERS: You need more information and you want to see the reviews?

GONZALES: Of course I would like to see exactly what he said.

But I was aware of the fact...

CONYERS: All right.

GONZALES: At the time I made my decision, I was aware of the fact, of course, that Senator Domenici, of course, had called me several times. Mr. Rove, in a conversation that he had with me, raised concerns about voter fraud prosecutions in three jurisdictions in the country, including New Mexico. My recollection is that occurred sometime in the fall of 2006.

I don't have any specific recollection that when I made my decision I was aware of the specific conversations that Mr. Friedrick (ph), I believe, may have testified to.

CONYERS: Thank you.

Mr. Lamar Smith, please?

SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Attorney General, let me go to what I consider to be the heart of the matter and ask you a series of questions.

The first is this: Did you seek the resignation of any U.S. attorney to retaliate for, interfere with, or gain a partisan advantage in any case or investigation, whether about public corruption or any other type of offense?

GONZALES: I wouldn't do that, Congressman Smith. I would not retaliate for partisan political reasons. That's not something that I believe is acceptable, and would not tolerate.

SMITH: Did the White House ever ask you to seek the resignation of any U.S. attorney in order to retaliate for, interfere with, or gain a partisan advantage in any case or investigation, whether about public corruption or any other offense?

GONZALES: Not that I recall, Congressman. I don't believe that the White House ever did.

SMITH: Have you ever intended to mislead or misinform Congress through any of your statements or testimony about the U.S. attorneys matter?

GONZALES: Of course not.

Now, I realize I've been inartful in some of my statements to the press; overly broad, perhaps, in my zeal to come out and defend the department. I've said things that I shouldn't have without first going back and reviewing thousands of pages of documents.

But in everything that I've done here, the principles that I've tried to support are truthfulness and being forthcoming, and accountability. And that's why we've provided thousands of pages of very internal, deliberative documents, why we've made DOJ officials available for interviews and for testimonies: because I want to reassure the American public and this committee that nothing improper happened here.

SMITH: Mr. Attorney General, let me go to my last question. And feel free to expound on your answer.

Do you believe the U.S. attorneys controversy has caused any unmerited damage to the Department of Justice and its ability to effectively pursue its mission of law enforcement? And if so, how?

GONZALES: Well, clearly -- I mean, it's been an unfortunate episode. And obviously, it's something that I have to deal with as head of the department.

I always worry about morale. I think every Cabinet official every day should wake up thinking about, "OK, is the morale of the department where it should be? Am I doing everything I can to be the most effective leader of the department?"

And so, of course, that's something that I worry about. I've indicated, I've spoken to all United States attorneys about this issue. I've told them, "Be focused on your job." I don't expect a single investigation, a single prosecution to be sped up or slowed down by what's happening here, that we will focus on making sure that Congress is provided the information that it needs to reassure itself that nothing improper happened here.

But at the end of the day, what the American people are focused on, I think -- they want to know that the Department of Justice is doing its part to make sure that our country is safe from terrorism, is doing our part to make sure that our neighborhoods are safe from violent crime and doing our part to make sure that our kids are safe from predators and pedophiles.

SMITH: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS: Thank you very much.

The chair recognizes the chairwoman of the Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee, Linda Sanchez.

SANCHEZ: I thank the chairman.

Good morning, Mr. Gonzales.

Mr. Gonzales, you've consistently maintained that only eight U.S. attorneys were forced out of their positions. Yet today's Washington Post states that there was a ninth, Todd Graves.

Are there any more U.S. attorneys that we should know about that were forced out?

GONZALES: Congresswoman, it's always been my understanding that this focus has been on the eight United States attorneys that were asked to resign last December 7th and June 14th, including Bud Cummins.

SANCHEZ: Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect, in page two of your testimony that you've previously given, you stated that there were only eight that were forced out.

GONZALES: As part of this process -- as part of this review process that I asked Mr. Sampson to conduct and which resulted in the culmination in December of '06, these were the individuals that this process identified as where changes should be appropriate.

Now, clearly, throughout my tenure as attorney general and throughout the tenure of my predecessors and other attorney generals, U.S. attorneys have left the department for a number of -- variety of reasons. So that happens.

SANCHEZ: Let's stop there.

Are you familiar with the former U.S. attorney in Los Angeles, Debra Wong Yang?

GONZALES: Yes.

SANCHEZ: And are you aware the she resigned her position in October of 2006 and took a position with a private law firm?

GONZALES: Yes, I am.

SANCHEZ: Do you have information as to whether Ms. Yang's resignation was entirely voluntary?

GONZALES: From what I know, Ms. Yang's resignation was entirely voluntary. She did a wonderful job and...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Now, are you aware that when Ms. Yang went to this firm, she received what has been reported as a $1.5 million bonus for joining the private law firm?

GONZALES: I don't know what she received. But whatever it was, it was a bargain for the firm because she is an outstanding lawyer.

SANCHEZ: Are you aware of any reason why she would have been given such an extraordinary bonus payment to hire an individual like her?

GONZALES: I suspect that given her outstanding qualifications, the fact that she's a woman, an Asian-American, would make her particularly attractive to a private firm.

SANCHEZ: So you think a $1.5 million signing bonus is typical for a situation like that?

GONZALES: Again, that's a decision for that firm to make.

SANCHEZ: OK.

Are you aware -- and this has been reported in the press -- that when she was hired by the firm, Ms. Yang was conducting an active investigation into Republican Congressman Jerry Lewis and his financial dealings with a particular lobbying firm? Were you aware of that?

GONZALES: I may have been aware of that. Sitting here today, I can't say that I was aware of that. But that is very likely.

We have public corruption investigations and prosecutions that are occurring every day all over the country, Congresswoman.

GONZALES: So it would not be unusual that such...

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: Well, let me tell you what concerns me.

What concerns me are the reports of the same firm that hired Ms. Yang away from her post as a U.S. attorney, with a large bonus payment, also, coincidentally, happens to be the firm that represents Mr. Lewis in this matter. Does that coincidence trouble you at all?

GONZALES: Not at all, because, again, what we have to remember is that for -- the American people need to understand this -- is that these investigations are not run primarily by the United States attorneys. They're handled by assistant United States attorneys, career prosecutors. And so these...

SANCHEZ: She had no role in the investigation of Mr. Lewis?

GONZALES: ... these investigations, these prosecutions continue, as they should.

This great institution is built to withstand departures of U.S. attorneys and attorneys general.

(CROSSTALK)

SANCHEZ: So you don't think it's inappropriate for a U.S. attorney to accept a lucrative job offer from a law firm representing the target of one of their active investigations in a position that she held just prior to going to that law firm? You don't think that that's inappropriate?

GONZALES: Again...

SANCHEZ: You don't think that there's perhaps at least an appearance of a conflict of interest...

(CROSSTALK)

GONZALES: Congresswoman Sanchez, I'm presuming -- knowing Deb Yang the way that I do and the people in that firm -- is that she would be recused from anything related to that matter as a member of that firm.

And, again, what's important for the American people to understand is, despite her departure, that case will continue, as it should.

SANCHEZ: So you're not concerned even with the appearance of conflicts of interest. It doesn't trouble you at all...

GONZALES: I'm always concerned about the appearance of a conflict...

SANCHEZ: ... especially at a point when the Justice Department is under scrutiny, the morale is probably the lowest that it's been in decades, and people are questioning the integrity of the DOJ to act in an evenhanded and fair manner.

GONZALES: Of course, as head of the department, I'm always concerned about the appearance and the perception. Of course I am.

But, again, this is more of a perception for the law firm as opposed to the Department of Justice because, as far as I know, we had nothing to do with placing Ms. Yang in that law firm. And as far as I know, nothing about that investigation has been impacted or affected in any way by virtue of her going to work in that firm.

SANCHEZ: What about this: Are you aware that one month before Ms. Yang resigned her post White House Counsel Harriet Miers had asked Kyle Sampson if Ms. Yang planned to keep her post or, as in Mr. Sampson's words to our investigators, quote/unquote, "whether a vacancy could be created there in Los Angeles"? Were you aware of that?

GONZALES: I think I may be aware of that, based on my review. I can't remember now whether or not that's reflected in the document.

Let me just say this, a couple things about that.

I recall -- Ms. Yang, when I said she left voluntarily, I think she left involuntarily in that she -- she had to leave for financial reasons. I think if she could have, she would have stayed. But I think she had to leave for financial reasons.

(CROSSTALK)

CONYERS: Former Chairman Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin?

SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman, if I could just beg your indulgence for 10 more seconds to ask unanimous consent that an article by the New York Times regarding the Yang matter be placed into the record.

CONYERS: Without objection, so ordered.

LUNGREN: Reserving the right to object.

CONYERS: For what purpose would you object putting that in the record?

LUNGREN: Because we have identified a fellow member of Congress as a specific target of investigation, it's been put on the record, and I think we ought to be very careful about that before we start besmirching members' names around.

CONYERS: We're not besmirched.

CONYERS: This is -- this is public information, Mr. Lungren. And I am going to allow it and recognize the former chairman of the committee.

LUNGREN: I do object, Mr. Chairman.

SANCHEZ: I thank the chairman.

SENSENBRENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a couple of questions about public corruption investigations as well.

In January of 2006, the former legislative director to Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana, Brett Pfeffer, pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the bribery of a public official and conspiracy.

In May of 2006, Vernon Jackson pled guilty in federal court to bribing Representative Jefferson with more than $400,000 of payments.

It's been on the public record that during a execution of a search warrant in Representative Jefferson's house, there was $90,000 of cold cash that was found in Representative Jefferson's freezer.

And all of that was a year ago.

My constituents are asking me when something is going to happen, whether an indictment is going to be returned or whether the Justice Department is going to make an announcement that there's insufficient evidence to prosecute Representative Jefferson.

When can the public expect some news one way or the other on this issue?

GONZALES: Congressman, you know I cannot talk about that.

SENSENBRENNER: Well, everybody's talking about it except you.

And, you know, this is kind of embarrassing, because this committee -- and it was on my watch when all of this happened -- is asked questions about what kind of oversight are we doing over the Department of Justice.

And the two guilty pleas were last year. The raid on Mr. Jefferson's house was, I believe, earlier than that. And then there was the raid on his office that posed a whole host of legal problems that are currently on appeal and will be argued next week before the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

SENSENBRENNER: I'm just interested in finding out when this matter is going to be brought to conclusion, because we authorize and appropriate a heck of a lot of money to run your department and people are wondering what the dickens is going on.

GONZALES: I have every confidence that the prosecutors in this case, as the prosecutors in all these cases -- they follow the evidence. And at the appropriate time, they'll take the appropriate action, Congressman.

That's all that I can say with respect to this particular case.

SENSENBRENNER: Would you believe that the legal issues that were raised both by Mr. Jefferson and by the counsel to the clerk of the House of Representatives on the raid on Jefferson's office in this very building has ended up slowing a decision on whether or not to indict Mr. Jefferson?

GONZALES: Congressman, I'm not going to comment on that. I don't think it would be appropriate.

At the appropriate time, I hope that I can have more to say about this matter.

SENSENBRENNER: Well, I would hope that the appropriate time would be pretty soon. Because the people's confidence in your department has been further eroded, separate and apart from the U.S. attorney controversy, because of the delay in dealing with this matter.

There's a man who's already been convicted of bribing the representative. My learning about the crime of bribery in law school says that in order to obtain a conviction there has to be a briber and the bribee.

The briber has been convicted. The alleged bribee has not even been indicted. And I think that there's a disconnect involved in this in the eyes of the public.

And we all suffer as a result of that, as members of Congress, that something's going on that hasn't been resolved.

SENSENBRENNER: I've made my point. I hope that you will tell your prosecutors to wrap this thing up and to let the public know as soon as they possibly can. And I hope that that's really soon.

And I yield the...

LUNGREN (?): Would the gentleman yield?

SENSENBRENNER: I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.

CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've been having a bit of a discussion over here. And I'd just like to ask -- and probably yield back to the gentleman so that he can yield to Mr. Lungren.

But I don't recall that Mr. Lewis has been identified as a target in an investigation. And I would like to ask the gentlelady if she is aware that he has been identified as a target.

SENSENBRENNER: I yield to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Sanchez.

SANCHEZ: I believe if you look at the New York Times article that was posted that it states, quote, "Ms. Yang was investigating Jerry Lewis, who was chairman of the powerful House Appropriations Committee," end quote.

SENSENBRENNER: I further yield to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Cannon.

CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner.

But I'd appreciate it if you'd yield to the gentleman from California...

SENSENBRENNER: I yield to the gentleman from California, Mr. Lungren.

LUNGREN: As anybody knows, there's a huge difference between an investigation and a target.

When I was attorney general of the state of California, we had investigations of literally hundreds of public officials. When someone brings an accusation, you have to look at it. That is a very different thing than being a target.

We take extreme caution to make sure you do not besmirch the reputations of people, because that is unfair. And that's the point I was trying to make.

We in this Congress 20 years ago besmirched the reputation...

SENSENBRENNER: Reclaiming my time before it is expired, I would just point out that in the Jefferson case, there have been people who have been convicted of misconduct involving Mr. Jefferson. With the New York Times article, there has not been an identification that Representative Lewis is even a target.

(CROSSTALK)

CONYERS: Just a moment. I'll let Attorney General Gonzales respond.

GONZALES: Mr. Chairman, so that there's no misunderstanding, the department has not confirmed, is not confirming that Mr. Lewis is a target.

SANCHEZ: Mr. Chairman, could I beg your indulgence for 30 seconds?

(CROSSTALK)

SENSENBRENNER: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent I be given an additional 30 seconds to yield to her.

CONYERS: Without objection so ordered.

SENSENBRENNER: I yield.

SANCHEZ: Just -- I appreciate you yielding.

Just to set the record straight, the question that I put to the attorney general was Ms. Yang was conducting an active investigation. I didn't say "target." I said "conducting an investigation." My words seem to get twisted in this committee and more import given to basic questions and sinister...

(CROSSTALK)

CANNON: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.

SANCHEZ: ... attributed to them, and with that, I will yield back to the gentleman from Wisconsin.

CANNON: Point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman. I stated correctly the word used by the gentlelady from California.

CONYERS: The chair recognizes the subcommittee chairman on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler.

CANNON: Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order and ask that the gentlelady's words be taken down.

CONYERS: Come on now. Let the...

CANNON: The gentlelady -- I'm happy with an apology, but the gentlelady used the word "target," and that is exceedingly inappropriate under the circumstances.

CONYERS: Mr. Cannon, the record is being taken. This will all come out now. I have no intention of delaying the appearance of the attorney general of the United States while we take down the words of someone.

(CROSSTALK)

(UNKNOWN): We call for a recorded vote, then.

CANNON: The chairman knows it's exceedingly hard to be gracious in this committee, and apologizing would be appropriate, but otherwise I insist that the gentlelady's words be taken down as a point of order.

SANCHEZ: If the gentleman will yield, I don't recall -- and I have the questions in front of me -- using the word "target." Had I used it, I certainly apologize for using that word. My understanding is my questions dealt with...

(CROSSTALK)

CONYERS: Will the gentlelady agree to withdraw any reference to "target" from the record if it's there?

SANCHEZ: I would. I would, Mr. Chairman. If it will expedite this hearing, I will.

CONYERS: Thank you.

CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I withdraw my point of order.

CONYERS: Thank you very much.

Mr. Nadler?

NADLER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Attorney General, when did Monica Goodling start in her role as special counsel to you and the White House liaison?

GONZALES: Congressman, I'm not sure the exact date, but I'd be happy...

NADLER: Roughly?

GONZALES: I'm not sure. Let me -- I'd have to get back to you.

NADLER: Can you give me the year?

GONZALES: You know, I don't whether or not it was in the fall of '05 -- sometime in '05.

NADLER: Roughly, you know -- OK.

Now, to your knowledge, was Ms. Goodling involved in the hiring decisions of career assistant U.S. attorneys at any point?

GONZALES: I'm certainly aware, now, of allegations that -- well, she used to be the deputy, of course, in the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys. And so there she would have some role with respect to the hiring of career assistant United States...

NADLER: As special counsel and White House liaison, when she had that position, was she involved?

GONZALES: I think she did have some role in that position.

NADLER: Isn't that process reserved for U.S. attorneys, and in some cases for the Executive Office of the United States Attorneys?

GONZALES: Is what...

NADLER: The selection process for assistant USAs.

GONZALES: Typically, that is something that is conducted within the office of the specific United States attorneys' offices. There would be, however -- if you're talking about a situation where you had an interim United States attorney, there are...

NADLER: Well, we weren't talking about interim attorneys. We were talking about generally.

Now, allegations have been might that Ms. Goodling considered the political affiliations of career AUSA applicants. Would you agree that, if that is true, that practice would violate not only Department of Justice policy but also federal law?

GONZALES: In fact, those are very, very serious allegations. And if that happened, it shouldn't have happened.

NADLER: Now, Mr. Attorney General, when this committee asked Ms. Goodling to testify in front of us, she claimed her Fifth Amendment right not to -- the Fifth Amendment says you can't be forced to -- what's the word -- incriminate yourself with respect to a crime.

Can you tell this committee what crimes she might have thought -- from your stewardship of the department, what crimes there were that it might have been reasonable for her to think that her testimony might incriminate her or anybody else in?

GONZALES: Well, I can't do that, Congressman.

Obviously, it's always been my expectation and hope that Justice Department employees or former Justice Department employees would come forward and cooperate in connection with this investigation.

(CROSSTALK)

GONZALES: I offered up everyone.

NADLER: But you're not aware of any -- when someone who is the deputy attorney general, or special counsel to the attorney general, says that her testimony about the U.S. attorneys matter might implicate her in a crime, you're not aware of any crimes that she might have been referring to?

GONZALES: I offered her up...

NADLER: Or speaking of, I should say.

GONZALES: ... to come testify.

NADLER: What.

GONZALES: As an initial matter of course, I offered her up -- I offered up people on my staff...

NADLER: You're not aware of that.

Now, you have testified that you ask yourself every day whether you can be effective as the head of the Department of Justice.

Did you consider that, by many accounts, the morale at the Department of Justice and throughout the U.S. attorney community is at its lowest level since just after Watergate?

GONZALES: Did I consider that -- I don't know what's the source of that statement.

NADLER: Well, let me give you a different statement, then.

The recent ABC/Washington Post poll reports that 67 percent of the American people believe that the firings of U.S. attorneys were for political reasons, not for performance-based reasons. And, indeed, former Deputy Attorney General Comey said that the people who were fired had the highest performance, that they weren't for performance-based reasons.

If the American people don't believe you about this matter, how can they have confidence in other things you claim or that public corruption cases brought by your department are not similarly based on political considerations?

GONZALES: I think the American people are most concerned about the things that I alluded to earlier, Congressman. And that is, is our country safe from terrorism? Are we making our neighborhoods safe? Are we protecting our kids?

I will work as hard as I can -- working with this committee and working with DOJ employees -- to reassure the American people that this department is focused on doing its job.

NADLER: But you have a situation where most people believe that you didn't tell the truth about the U.S. attorneys.

And if that is the case -- they may be concerned about terrorism and ought to be, obviously, but it's a separate issue.

If most people believe that the United States attorney general has not told the truth about why these U.S. attorneys were fired, how can they have confidence in your job?

GONZALES: I don't believe that's an accurate statement.

And what I'm trying to do in appearances like this is to set the record straight.

NADLER: Well, the 67 percent -- 67 percent of the American people, according to the ABC/Washington Post poll, believe that the firings of the U.S. attorneys were for political reasons and not for performance-based reasons, which is exactly the opposite of what you have testified to.

GONZALES: I don't know when that poll was taken.

But, again, we've been very, very forthcoming, Congressman, in terms of our testimony...

NADLER: Well, I don't -- all right. That's a matter of opinion.

NADLER: But let me ask you this: If it is true, as you have testified, that you had very little personal involvement in the decision to fire the eight U.S. attorneys, you delegated that, you weren't really familiar with the reasons and the specifics -- and that's what you said -- and did not know the reasons some of them were on the list, how can we believe that you were involved in a hands-on manner in running the department in numerous other important issues?

GONZALES: Look at the record of the department. Look at the record of the department.

NADLER: No, that doesn't answer the question.

If you have stated to this committee and to other committees that in the matter of firing eight U.S. attorneys which you signed off on, you signed off on it without really knowing why or what their performance was, how can we believe that you really know what's going on in the department?

GONZALES: I think -- I think I was justified as head of that department to rely upon the people whose judgment that I valued, people who would know a lot more about the performance of United States attorneys. I think as head of the department I was justified in doing so.

Now, in hindsight, I've already said, I would have used a process that was more vigorous. There's no question about that.

But, again, Congressman, I would say, look at the record of the department in a wide variety of areas and...

NADLER: Well, let's look at the record of the department in a different area: national security letters.

Why is the government issuing NSLs to conduct fishing expeditions or, as the I.G. put it, to access NSL information about parties two or three steps removed from their subjects without determining if these contacts are real suspicious connections?

GONZALES: Well, of course, the I.G. also said that national security letters are indispensable -- indispensable.

NADLER: That's not the question.

(CROSSTALK)

NADLER: Excuse me. National security letters properly used may be indispensable. But they were abused. That was the I.G...

GONZALES: There is no question about that.

NADLER: So why is the department issuing NSLs to conduct -- I'll just repeat the question -- to conduct fishing expeditions, as the I.G. put it...

CONYERS: The gentleman's time has expired.

NADLER: May I have one additional minute?

CONYERS: Finish the question.

NADLER: Thanks.

To access NSL information about parties two or three times removed from their subjects without determining if these contacts are real suspicious connections?

Let me add to that, why is there no policy or practice of destroying information collected thusly, wrongly collected on innocent Americans?

GONZALES: There's a long answer I need to give with respect to NSLs. I'm not sure whether or not now is the time to do it.

But the I.G. identified some very serious issues with respect to the FBI's use of national security letters. No question they're an indispensable tool, but they've got to be used in a responsible manner, and we failed to do that. There's no -- we did. We failed to do that.

GONZALES: And the American people need to understand that we are taking steps to ensure that that doesn't happen again. The standard is whether or not is it relevant to a national security investigation?

NADLER: Are you taking steps to destroy information on people who are not involved in terrorism?

GONZALES: Yes. If it's not relevant to a national security investigation, yes, we are taking steps.

NADLER: Well, the testimony was that those records were not being destroyed.

CONYERS: The chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Howard Coble.

COBLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And, General, good to have you on the Hill.

I'm going to pursue a different line of questioning. If time permits, I'm going to come back to the U.S. attorney situation.

General, I'm particularly interesting in the activities of the Computer Crime and Intellectual Properties Section, known as CCIP, at the Department of Justice.

Intellectual property theft is an enormous theft, as you and we all know. Are you confident, General, that the Justice Department has the necessary tools to investigate and prosecute high-level intellectual property cases that could severely interrupt or eliminate international criminal networks who are using intellectual property piracy to fund their organizations, A?

And B, I am told that there may be an insufficient number of FBI special agents at the department who, to successfully work these complicated cases.

And finally, C, General, how can we more successfully prevent or prosecute counterfeiting and intellectual piracy crimes in the United States and around the world?

That's a three-part question I threw at you.

GONZALES: Let me start with the last one, in terms of what we can do to work against counterfeiting.

One is prosecution, and utilizing the tools that Congress has given us to go after counterfeiters.

But not -- this is not an issue that we can deal with solely through the United States. We have to have the cooperation of our friends and allies around the world.

And so when I travel around the world, this is -- intellectual- property theft is always an issue that I raise. Because we can't successfully deal with it here in this country.

The second way to deal with counterfeiting is education, to educate the public about the dangers of counterfeiting. For example, if you're talking about counterfeiting of drugs, that could be dangerous to the consumer. If you're talking about counterfeiting of an airplane part, that could be dangerous to people who fly on airplanes. And so education is a very important part of that.

Whether or not we have sufficient agents working on these complicated cases, I suspect if I were to ask the director he would say we always need more resources. You always need more agents, because these are very, very complicated cases.

The whole area -- you know, computer technology, the Internet -- it's wonderful for consumers. It's wonderful for the American people. But the changes in technology are such that in the hands of criminals, in the hands of terrorists, it presents unique challenges to those of us in the law enforcement community.

Because these individuals -- criminals and terrorists will pay to advance technology. They see what we do. And so when we do something to defend against this kind of theft, defend against these kind of criminal activities, then they'll go out and they'll pay top dollar for the top innovators. And they get changes in technology, new encryption. And it makes it much more difficult for us to track them.

So this is a continuing struggle. It is a war on many fronts, whether you're talking about Internet pharmacies that are springing up that are illegitimate, whether or not you're talking about Internet crimes involving our children.

GONZALES: This is a real war that's being waged over the Internet, being waged through technology.

And I do sometimes worry that we don't have the best minds on this, we don't have adequate resources. And I think that's something that I'd love to talk to Congress about because I worry about this very much.

COBLE: Well, I, too, worry about it, General, and I'm concerned. I hope that the American public is aware of the threat that is potentially posed by this problem.

But in any event, I thank you for that.

Now let's come back to the U.S. attorney situation.

Since the U.S. attorney situation arose, General, have you implemented any new processes or procedures governing or dictating the dismissal of U.S. attorneys to ensure that a similar situation will not occur in the future in either this or future administrations?

GONZALES: I've certainly thought about what I would have done differently in terms of a more vigorous and a little bit more formal process.

But I want to emphasize something for the committee, and this is very important. I think to a person, in terms of the U.S. attorneys that I've spoken with, they don't want a formal review process. They don't like it. They don't want it.

They do want to be told if there are issues with their performance, have somebody let them know ahead of time and give them an opportunity to correct it.

The other reason I would resist a formal process is because we all serve at the pleasure of the president. And if, in fact, we had a formal process and that formal process says Al Gonzales is doing well, or that this U.S. attorney is doing well, politically it may make it more difficult for the president to exercise his constitutional authority.

So we don't want a formal process per se, but I think something a little bit more structured, something a little bit more vigorous would have made sense.

And clearly I think one thing that we are going to do is at least once a year every United States attorney is going to sit down with either myself or the deputy attorney general and we're going to have a very candid conversation about issues and problems in their districts. If I've heard of complaints from something that's a member of Congress, it gives me an opportunity or the DAG, the deputy attorney general, an opportunity to tell the U.S. attorney what we're hearing.

So I think that's something that needs to be in place. That's never been in place before.

The level of communication between main Justice and our United States attorneys, what I've discovered, is not very good. We can do better, and I think we are going to make it better.

COBLE: And I want to follow up, General, with the counterfeiting and piracy problem subsequently.

COBLE: And, Mr. Chairman, I see my red light is illuminated. So I will sit down and shut up.

CONYERS: Well, you can submit the question to him to be answered later.

COBLE: I thank you.

CONYERS: The subcommittee chairman on Crime, Bobby Scott of Virginia?

SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And thank you, Mr. Gonzales, for being with us today.

I wanted to pose a question and get a response in writing later from you. But we have -- Representative Wolf, Representative Maloney and I wrote you a letter a few months ago, recommending and requesting that you make better use of the tough measures in the Protect Act and the Adam Walsh Act to go after domestic traffickers in this country, rather than using measures only involving force, fraud and coercion.

The bills we passed make it much easier to go after the notorious and brutal system of domestic prostitution. And we are going to ask you why you're not making better use of that information.

Last week, we also had a vote on discrimination -- potential discrimination in the Head Start program. Is it -- you have not been able to discriminate in employment based on religion during the entirety of the 40 years of the Head Start program. An attempt was made to allow some to discriminate.

Can we count on your opposition to any effort to water down the discrimination prohibitions in the Head Start program?

GONZALES: Obviously, Congressman, that would be something that would be of concern to me. Whether or not I would oppose legislation, I have to look at it first. And the administration speaks with one voice, but it's something I would look at very seriously.

SCOTT: Can you conceive of your support for a provision that would tell a prospective Head Start teacher that, "You can't get a job here because of your religion"?

GONZALES: Well, Congressman, I'd like to look at that. But, again, that would be something that I would be concerned about.

SCOTT: One of the problems we've had in the Crime Subcommittee is the situation where people do not want to cooperate with the police.

SCOTT: There is a culture of no snitching and not coming forth to participate as witnesses.

Part of the problem is we have to have confidence that the criminal justice system is impartial.

Now, one of the questions that was asked -- I think the gentleman from Texas asked, did the White House ask you to seek removal of a U.S. attorney for retaliation?

Now, let me change that a little bit. Did the White House ask you to seek the removal of any U.S. attorney?

GONZALES: Congressman, I don't have a -- I have a recollection of Mr. Rove raising concerns about prosecutions of voter fraud cases in three districts.

Of course, I've now been made aware of the fact that there was a conversation with the president basically mentioned the same thing. This was in October of 2006.

We have a process -- there's a process within the White House Judicial Selection Committee process, where decisions are made with respect to the appointment of judges. That also involves the appointment of U.S. attorneys.

It's conceivable that in those meetings, there was some discussion about someone leaving. But I don't have any specific recollection...

SCOTT: The question of people leaving -- we had the CRS do an investigation. And they only found 10 cases of U.S. attorneys leaving -- other than the usual practice of a new set coming in, only 10 in the last 25 years. And they found that each and every one of those is involved in a scandal or removed for cause.

Can you give us the name of anyone in the last 25 years that you know of that CRS couldn't find that was fired or asked to leave involuntarily, other than a scandal?

GONZALES: I'm not familiar with the CRS report. I don't know how they conducted their review.

I will tell you that there are many instances where someone engages in certain kinds of conduct that are improper. There's a quiet conversation that occurs. And then that person decides, "I'm going to leave voluntarily."

And so I don't know whether or not the CRS is capable of identifying those kinds of...

SCOTT: OK.

They couldn't find one that didn't leave other than for cause.

Now, in your testimony you indicated that it would be an improper reason for the removal of a U.S. attorney, and an improper reason would be the replacement of one or more U.S. attorneys in order to impede or speed along particular criminal investigations for illegitimate reasons.

You call that improper. Wouldn't that be illegal?

GONZALES: Yes, that would be interference...

SCOTT: OK.

GONZALES: ... depending on the circumstances.

SCOTT: Now, the -- in light of the fact that some people have been designated as loyal Bushies, we know that some people -- some of the U.S. attorneys got telephone calls from political figures and were fired.

SCOTT: Are you aware of any that got political phone calls, with attempts to apply political pressure, that were not fired?

GONZALES: I would have to go back and look at that, Congressman.

SCOTT: The editorial that was put in the record indicates that Mrs. Yang had been designated -- been called by you as one of the most respected U.S. attorneys in the country.

The editorial says that Harriet Miers focused on only two U.S. attorneys for removal, her and one other.

Can you explain how Mrs. Yang's name got on that list of attorneys to be removed?

GONZALES: I don't recall that her name was on the list of attorneys to be removed.

But let me just say...

SCOTT: Well, she was targeted -- was she not targeted by Harriet Miers?

GONZALES: I think -- I recall knowing about Ms. Yang's concern about remaining in the position because of the financial situation. She would have to -- it was my understanding...

SCOTT: Was she not on a target list of Harriet Miers?

GONZALES: I don't recall her being on a target list for Harriet Miers.

I think that Ms. Miers may have known about Ms. Yang's concern about continuing to remain on the job for financial reasons. And therefore, that being a very important office, it would be understandable...

SCOTT: You dispute the editorial in the New York Times, May 4, 2007?

GONZALES: I haven't read the editorial, Congressman. What I'm trying to tell you is that...

(CROSSTALK)

GONZALES: ... is that Ms. Miers may have known...

SCOTT: If you could respond in writing so that you can...

CONYERS: Time's expired.

SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, could I ask just that he respond in writing to the allegations made in the editorial?

Thank you.

CONYERS: The gentleman from California, Elton Gallegly?

GALLEGLY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, General Gonzales.

As members of this committee and as members of Congress, we all have varied priorities, as I'm sure you're well aware. But I would hope that no priority for any member of this committee or this Congress is greater than working to make this nation as safe as possible, as it relates to another terrorist attack.

Mr. Gonzales, The Washington Post reported just this morning that at least two members of an alleged terrorist cell in New Jersey were illegal aliens and had been stopped by the police repeatedly for traffic violations.

GALLEGLY: This is eerily similar to the case of Mohammed Atta, who was here illegally and was pulled over by the Florida State Police for a traffic violation. A mere month later, he flew an airplane into the World Trade Center.

What steps is the Department of Justice taking to ensure that illegal aliens who are stopped for traffic violations or other crimes are identified and deported?

GONZALES: Well, of course, those stops generally would occur by state and local officials.

GALLEGLY: Right.

GONZALES: And the question is whether or not -- is that information shared with the department and shared with the Department of Homeland Security?

And I know there's been a concerted effort by the Department of Homeland Security to try and encourage state and locals to be of more assistance in dealing with illegal aliens here in this country.

And, obviously, some jurisdictions are prohibited by law from doing so. Some jurisdictions do not want to do so because they don't have the resources, because they believe it will hurt their relationships in the community. But some jurisdictions are stepping up and providing additional assistance.

And where in fact we can prosecute people, we do so. But I'll be candid with you, Congressman: I mean, it's a question of resources in many cases because you're talking about thousands and hundreds of thousands of people. And unless you're talking about someone who's engaged in a very serious crime, sometimes the resources are such that we have to look at prosecuting other crimes first.

GALLEGLY: Well, I appreciate the answer, and I know that's an ongoing problem working with other jurisdictions. But, as you well know, history has a very, very strong history of repeating itself. That's the reason I asked that question.

On an issue that is more directly related to your office, this past Saturday -- and I'm not normally one that quotes The Washington Post, but it was a source of a page-one story that interested me greatly. It was regarding the issue of illegal immigrants who have ignored and evaded deportation orders.

These people, who are known as alien absconders, are not just people who came to the country illegally, but in many cases are those that have committed serious crimes in this country.

The article points out that, as of April of this year, there is a backlog of over 636,000 illegal alien absconders.

GALLEGLY: This number has more than doubled since the year 2001.

What is the Department of Justice doing to identify, apprehend, deport -- and deport alien absconders and those that have flaunted the deportation orders by the United States courts? And are you satisfied with that as a priority?

GONZALES: I think that we're doing everything we can do.

But, quite frankly, again, because there are issues relating to resources -- there's also issues relating to space, bed space in our prisons, and bed space that can be contracted out from state and local jurisdictions.

And so I'm confident that we're doing everything that we can do. But, again, it's a question of seeing if we can find additional space to actually hold these people.

And, again, I think this would be one reason why I think the president is supportive of comprehensive immigration reform that is workable. Because we have to have a system, whatever we do by Congress. And the president has laid out principles that he supports.

But whatever it is, it's got to be one that's workable, where we don't have a situation that someone who's been determined to be unlawfully in this country nonetheless is released because we have no place to put them. And then they hide in our neighborhoods.

GALLEGLY: In the last 18 months of your term, what specific steps are you planing to take to improve the process of prosecuting those who violate immigration laws, particularly drug smugglers and human trafficking?

GONZALES: I think one of the things we're going to do is have a conversation with United States attorneys, get an assessment about what additional resources may be available to throw at these particular cases, have a conversation perhaps with the -- Harley Lappin, the director of prisons to see, is there anything else that we can do for additional bed space? What can we do in terms of contracting out? Have more conversations with the Department of Homeland Security.

So these are things that we could look at.

But I think to really address this problem, it will probably require additional resources, and I think seriously requires a change in our immigration laws.

GONZALES: We need to have a system that is comprehensive and one that is really workable.

CONYERS: Time's expired.

GALLEGLY: I see that the time has expired.

I'd just like to respond to the statement that, with all due respect, Attorney General, I think that the laws aren't the primary problem. I think the will to enforce the laws as it relates to immigration plays a very big role.

And, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, because of the time situation, I would ask unanimous consent that we may be able to ask additional questions in writing and have them responded to and made a part of the record of the hearing.

CONYERS: Absolutely. That's been understood, and we will continue that procedure.

GALLEGLY: Thank you.

CONYERS: The chair of the Immigration Subcommittee, Zoe Lofgren?

LOFGREN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do have some questions on the U.S. attorney situation. But before I ask that, I would just like the attorney general not to answer today, but to spend some time attending to the dreadful situation of the FBI name check.

As of May 4th of this month, USCIS had sent and had pending 300,000-plus names to the FBI; 155,000 of those name checks have been pending for more than six months. And we know, historically, that far less than 1 percent ever have any problem.

But this is a real problem for two points of view.

One, economically, if you've got somebody that needs to be cleared, this messes it up. And, as a matter of fact, I just got a call from a venture capitalist in Silicon Valley, this huge venture that could end up hiring hundreds of Americans, is just stalled because of a three-year delay. They just can't get any answer at all out of the engineer and the inventor that they know about.

The other side is, for that less than 1 percent, we're not finding them, and that could be a threat.

So I don't want you to answer now, but I do hope that you will get back to this committee, because it's an outrageous situation.

Now I would like to inquire about the situation of U.S. Attorney Todd Graves.

Here we have been pursuing -- I'm on the subcommittee of jurisdiction -- we thought there was an eight attorney general situation. And now, according to press reports, there's a ninth U.S. attorney situation.

LOFGREN: And I'd like to know, the news media is reporting that Mr. Graves had been targeted for removal on Mr. Samson's list as early as January of 2006. And one reason suggested in the press is that in November of 2005 the U.S. attorney, Mr. Graves, refused to sign onto a lawsuit that was proposed by main Justice accusing the state of Missouri of improper conduct regarding its voter rolls.

Would you have recommended Mr. Graves for removal based on that exercise of his prosecutorial judgment?

GONZALES: I have no basis to believe that, in fact, Mr. Graves -- that that particular case has anything to do with Mr. Graves' departure. I've spoken with the head of the Civil Rights Division this morning about this; obviously just became aware of Mr. Graves' statements in today paper.

I spoke with him -- Wan Kim, head of the Civil Rights Division. He signed the complaint. He stands behind that particular case. He's not aware of any concerns that existed in that office.

Now, we haven't spoken to everyone in that office, but we're not aware of any concerns that existed in that office with respect to this particular case. The assistant U.S. attorney signed on the complaint as well. Mr. Graves' name is on the complaint.

The case involved whether or not the voter lists were accurate in Missouri, and the Democratic secretary of state issued a statement saying...

LOFGREN: Mr. Attorney General, are you aware that just last month this litigation was dismissed for lack of evidence?

LOFGREN: Doesn't that suggest that the judgment not to file might have been the right one?

GONZALES: Well, again, we are evaluating whether to appeal. But it's my understanding that the judge decided that the department should not have sued the secretary of state but should have sued the local jurisdictions. So that's the basis for the dismissal -- the primary basis for the dismissal as I understand it.

And, again, the Democratic secretary of state issued a statement saying basically, "You got us. Our roles are incomplete and inaccurate." And I think it's legitimate for the American people to expect that voting lists be reasonably accurate. That's what Congress required in its laws.

LOFGREN: I understand -- and this is really based on press reports so I don't have any firsthand knowledge -- that Mr. Schlozman had vote fraud experience but little prosecutorial experience, and that when Mr. Graves was left, that Mr. Schlozman was almost immediately appointed by you as his replacement.

It seemed to me -- I mean, just looking it at, doesn't it look like there was some plan in place to replace this Mr. Graves with Mr. Schlozman related to this prosecution? And isn't it true that the department's own criteria for bringing lawsuits would tend to indicate that lawsuits would not be brought just before an election?

GONZALES: The substance and timing of the -- well, let me just say again that I spoke with the head of the Civil Rights Division this morning and he stands behind this litigation. He believes it was an appropriate use of the department's resources. And we will determine whether or not to...

LOFGREN: Well, I don't want to be rude, Mr. Gonzales, but the bells are ringing and I just have one more second to read very briefly the quotes in the Boston Globe that says -- and I quote -- "Schlozman was reshaping the Civil Rights Division said Joe Rich, who was chief of the Voting Rights Section until 2005. In an interview he said, quote, 'Schlozman didn't know anything about voting law. All he knew was he wanted to make sure that Republicans were going to win.'"

And that was from the career guy who got pushed out from the department. I would like your comments on that, in writing, later.

I know my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS: Former attorney general of California, Daniel Lungren?

LUNGREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Attorney General, when I was attorney general of California, I only had 1,000 lawyers and 5,000 employees. How many do you have?

GONZALES: Approximately 110,000.

LUNGREN: And how many lawyers?

GONZALES: Oh, about, I think, 10,000 to 15,000.

LUNGREN: And how many U.S. attorneys?

GONZALES: We have 93 U.S. attorneys.

LUNGREN: Do you actually delegate?

GONZALES: Yes.

LUNGREN: Do you delegate authority at times?

GONZALES: Of course.

LUNGREN: I mean, that seems to be a surprise here, that you would delegate.

I mean, I delegated occasionally when I was attorney general. And sometimes I found out that those to whom I delegated responsibilities didn't perform the way I thought they would, and tried to make some changes thereafter.

But really, we sometimes confuse here, it seems to me, the question of competence versus the question of criminality. And that's the concern that, of all committees of the House, this ought to be of the highest priority.

Let me ask you this: In terms of U.S. attorneys, do you expect that they should reflect the emphases of the president of the United States?

And what I mean by that is, we have presidential elections every four years. A president comes in and says, "I want to make crime- fighting the number one priority; I want to give assistance to the states with their drug-fighting; I want to assist the states in going after gangs."

Do you expect that your U.S. attorneys ought to at least pay some attention to the priorities of a president of the United States, that is, his administration's policies?

GONZALES: Yes. In fact, we have a conversation with him when they come on board and we make it clear that the president's accountable to the American people for the policies and priorities which he campaigned on. And those can only be carried out by the attorney general...

LUNGREN: But isn't that political?

GONZALES: Well, I think, with respect to policies and priorities, one could say it's political, but that would be OK. That would be OK to do...

LUNGREN: I think so, but some people find that shocking.

It's been said -- and I know we're not supposed to counter editorials of the New York Times and other articles, but I'm aware of at least one case, in a U.S. attorney in California, in a prior administration, that left office.

You won't find a record that that person left office because of lack of performance, but I happen to believe that's the case.

LUNGREN: We're acting around this place like U.S. attorneys are the product of the Immaculate Conception, and once they've been created that cannot be undone.

Now, let me ask you this about voter fraud: Do you believe that we ought to investigate voter fraud that might take place as the result of people who are dead still being on the rolls?

GONZALES: Congressman, it is the law. We have an obligation to investigate and prosecute voter fraud.

Where this notion that somehow voter fraud is a dirty word, I don't understand it. Because you're talking about people stealing votes, canceling out legitimate votes. And so we have an obligation -- as a minority, to me it's extremely important to make sure that votes count. And I think we have an obligation at the department to pursue voter fraud.

LUNGREN: I've been a little confused by some of the statements that have come out of the Justice Department and from you, quite frankly, Mr. Attorney General, about the propriety of reviewing the performance of U.S. attorneys who might be performing well as attorneys, but not be bringing forward the emphases or the priorities of the administration.

Do you think that's an appropriate thing to bring up in terms of a review, as opposed to whether or not they're good attorneys and they prosecute cases well; that is, the array of their resources with respect to the priorities of the administration?

GONZALES: I do.

LUNGREN: And would that, could that be the grounds for making a determination as to whether a U.S. attorney stays?

GONZALES: It could be.

LUNGREN: Under the statute, does a U.S. attorney have a prescribed term?

GONZALES: The statute says four years. But, of course, the statute also says that they may be removed by the president.

LUNGREN: So it's a maximum of four years unless reappointed. Is that correct?

GONZALES: What is customary -- I wouldn't say customary. What often happens is that U.S. attorneys simply hold over unless there's a decision made by the president to make some kind of change.

LUNGREN: So I'm trying to...

GONZALES: What I would say is that we all serve -- this is a privilege. I have the privilege of serving as the attorney general.

If the president comes to me today and says, "I no longer have pleasure in you continuing to serve," that's the way it works.

LUNGREN: Did the president of the United States or anybody from the White House tell you to investigate or remove any U.S. attorney because they were launching a particular investigation against a Democrat or Republican for partisan reasons, or to back off of any such prosecution?

GONZALES: They never said it to me.

LUNGREN: Did you ever say that to anybody?

GONZALES: No.

LUNGREN: Anybody in your department say that that you know of?

GONZALES: Not that I'm aware of.

LUNGREN: Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.

CONYERS: Mr. Attorney General, we are going to recess for the votes, of course. And we will resume immediately after the votes have taken place on the floor of the House.

Thank you very much.

(RECESS)

CONYERS: Committee will come to order.

We thank you for your cooperation, Attorney General.

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

JACKSON-LEE: Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Mr. General.

And let me thank the chairman and the ranking member. This is a vital hearing and question-and-answer process for protecting the integrity of the Constitution and the integrity of your office, which I assume you've come today to be as open as you could be in order to ensure that that happens.

Before I start the questioning on the matter at hand, let me share with you consternation and frustration that we have dealing with a question of the viability, the constitutionality of the prison system in the state of Texas.

It goes really to the overall question that this chart that I will hold up suggests, is that under your tenure, starting from 2005, every civil rights case has gone down. It means police abuse, racial violence, hate crimes, human trafficking under your clock and under your watch, it has been a steady decline of prosecutions by the attorney general.

That poses a crisis for America.

Let me just quickly ask for your assistance. You may not be able to answer this, but this is a crisis.

I hold up an article that indicates that in Houston, Texas, we will double the number of deaths in the Harris County jail; 11 right now, 117 over 10 years, and a sheriff who is completely absent from the sensitivity of the constitutional rights of the inmates.

Let me just quickly say to you that here is an example. Calvin Mack, a homeless and hardened drug addict, continued to bleed, continued to die. The -- if you will, the person in the jail said, "What do you want me to do, get a Band-Aid?" a deputy quipped when he was asked to come to the cell block. Four hours passed before the officer called for medical help. By then Mack was all but dead.

JACKSON-LEE: In the Texas Youth Commission, it says that a Texas Youth Commission's officer was arrested for having sex with a female youth.

And so my question to you is, it is clear that we have a crisis in the prosecution of constitutional rights of those -- the underserved, if you will. We know if you're in jail, you've committed some sort of an offense, but you deserve the question of the Constitution.

My question to you, one, I'd like to have a meeting with all of your staff asking for an inspector generals' investigation of the Harris County Jail and the Texas Youth Commission. You have letters that I sent, you sent back saying, "We think you have concerns. Send us more information."

I am happy to be an investigator for the DOJ. It is not my job right now. I am happy to participate with giving you family members and others whose loved ones have died, but I believe this warrants an official Justice Department investigation to make good on these low, low numbers of prosecuting civil rights, constitutional rights of any number of individuals.

Can I yield to you just for the answer? I have letters from your department. You can review them. Can we work together to ensure the safety and security of youth inmates in the TYC, and those in the Harris County Jail?

GONZALES: Yes.

JACKSON-LEE: I'd look forward to a more extensive answer and a meeting, and I will be happy to present family members and others.

And I, likewise, in your capacity, invite you to Houston, Texas, so that we can have a larger assessment of this situation. People are dying and this is prevalent across America, and I would welcome the opportunity to discuss, at another round, the whole question of police abuse and other issues.

Let me just move forward more as we look at the issues at hand, and with all due respect, let me say to you (OFF-MIKE).

And I'd like you to think about how telling they are...

CONYERS: You've got 48 seconds left.

JACKSON-LEE: (OFF-MIKE) hitting back the Congress, and this whole thing of Deputy Attorney General Alston (ph) reacted quite a bit to the idea of anyone voluntarily testifying. And he seemed to threaten Bud Cummins, and said, "You will regret coming forward and testifying."

JACKSON-LEE: Mr. Attorney General, with all these political comments, how are you going to fix this troubling and devastating litany of duplicity in your department? What steps have you taken to address these problems?

I'd appreciate, Mr. Attorney General, your answer.

The light is still on.

GONZALES: Obviously, there have been some very serious allegations made, Congresswoman. And one of the things that we're going to do with respect to these serious allegations is that we have made referrals to the Office of Professional Responsibility and to the Office of Inspector General.

These entities exist in order to respond to allegations, to do investigations to reassure the American public that in fact we take these kinds of allegations very, very seriously.

But I want to put everything in perspective for you. I think that there have been allegations made with respect to the conduct of three political appointees in the entirety of the Department of Justice. There are hundreds of political appointees, there are tens of thousands of career employees at the Department of Justice.

So I don't want the American people to believe that in fact politicalization is running rampant in the department, because that's just not true.

Obviously, I take these allegations very seriously. I don't want to minimize them. But to the extent that allegations are made that there's improper conduct, they are referred where they should be referred. We are doing an investigation to ensure that in fact, if anything improper happened here, we're going to get to the bottom of it. And there will be accountability.

JACKSON-LEE: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put into the record the two articles that I referred to -- which are the Houston Chronicle, dated April 5th, 2007, and the Chronicle dated April 25th, 2007.

And I would just simply say...

CONYERS: Without objection, so ordered.

JACKSON-LEE: ... is the attorney general offers a wonderful mea culpa, but I would just say...

CONYERS: The chair recognizes...

JACKSON-LEE: ... the perception is there.

I thank the...

CONYERS: ... the ranking subcommittee member...

(CROSSTALK)

CONYERS: ... of Commercial and Administrative Law, Chris Cannon?

CANNON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to submit for the record also a letter from Randy Mastro at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

CONYERS: Without objection.

CANNON: This is a letter that rebuts Mr. Cohen's (ph) editorial, and points out that they did not offer Ms. Yang $1.5 million.

CANNON: And in addition to that, she recused herself while she was at the department, and she is not participating in those issues where she's gone. And they praise her as a great attorney.

Secondly, let's see...

(UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE)

CANNON: No, this is the Cohen (ph) editorial, the one she referred to, yes.

General Gonzales, thanks for being here. I think you're very gracious to address these accusations as serious and not react to the suggestion of duplicity -- there may be duplicity, out of 110,000 employees -- but I think you've been very direct here this morning.

You're familiar with Mr. Margolis at the Department of Justice, are you not?

GONZALES: Yes.

CANNON: And my understand is he's the senior career employee at the department. Is that right?

GONZALES: I think he may not be the senior, but he's certainly one of the most senior.

CANNON: Probably one of the most outspoken. And he was actually interviewed, and I'd like to read some of the comments that he made.

He was asked by Mr. Broderick Socal (ph), "And then you testified that you said something to the effect of, but this does open the door to a more responsible -- and you used that word, that is, 'more responsible' -- to a focused process to identify weak performers and make some changes. And you thought that was a good idea."

And Mr. Margolis said -- responded, "I thought it was a great idea, long overdue."

Now, I believe it was Mr. Scott who was talking about the CRS report on firings at the Department of Justice, which is retrospective, of course. And here you've got a senior member -- or senior person at the Department of Justice pointing out that he thought what you were doing here was a great idea.

A little more here: "To move onto another thing, you mentioned during your testimony earlier in the day, I believe, that you had indicated that you thought it was good of the department to embark on an exercise like this; that is, reviewing U.S. attorneys."

Mr. Margolis; "Absolutely. And I -- I should add, one of my sadnesses" -- his word -- "I have a lot of sadness about this, but it was a great idea. Our execution wasn't particularly good, but we didn't have much experience with it."

So this is a new idea, a new process here.

"But one of my great sadnesses is I fear that, down the road, people will shy away from doing this again because of the burning here."

In other words, he's condemning the politicization of this process.

"And so, when a U.S. attorney called me a couple of weeks ago to run an idea past me," he said, 'I want to take some action, but I want to run it past you and take your temperature, because I don't want to get fired.'"

CANNON: "I said to him, 'Buddy, you could urinate on the president's leg now, and it wouldn't work,'" suggesting that the department has, in fact, been affected. And, again, Mr. Margolis is one of the very senior career guys who happens -- I think you would agree he loves the department...

GONZALES: No question about that.

CANNON: ... cares about the institution...

GONZALES: Yes.

CANNON: ... cares about the integrity of the institution...

GONZALES: Yes.

CANNON: And was called on to testify because they thought he would do what he suggested could not be -- or could be done without fear of being fired, I suppose. "Were you involved in any way," he was asked, "about the decision to put Ms. Lam on the list?" He says, "So it didn't surprise me in that sense because when Mercer (ph) was PDAG, he used to tell me about problems he was having with here, vis-a-vis immigration and immigration and guns, I believe." Then he goes on and he says, "Based upon my interaction with her and what other people, including Ms. Mercer (ph), said, both then and now, and reading my -- and I love Carol like a sister; an outstanding investigative lawyer, an outstanding trial lawyer, tough as nails, honest as the day is long, but had her own ideas about what the priorities of the department would be and was probably insubordinate on those things." That's -- nobody is claiming Mr. Margolis is political or politicizing this process. He's saying this is a process that was good, and he wants it to happen or continue. Later he says, "She called me primarily to tell me that. I think she said, "I think I just got fired by Mike Battle.'" But later he says, "And then she speculated to me that is was over immigration and guns." She then told what the problem was. By the way, I think he said it was a very pleasant conversation. So this is not about competency, nobody's saying Ms. Lam wasn't competent, but she wasn't doing -- and she understood she wasn't doing -- what the president wanted.

CANNON: Do you think that's correct, Mr. Gonzales?

GONZALES: First of all, let me just say that Carol and these other United States attorneys, I mean, they're fine individuals, very, very, very fine lawyers...

CANNON: Thank you. I don't want to cut you off, but I do want -- I just want to put one more in. This is Mr. Margolis again. "I was asked about David Iglesias. Given everything I know today, he would have been number one on my list to go." "That's because he didn't call and report the phone calls?" "That's right." And he goes on to talk about that. So we did have some problems with some of these guys in the sense that they weren't exactly paradigms of competence, were they?

GONZALES: It was my idea that these individuals had been identified by the senior leadership in the department as having issues or concerns and that a chance would be legitimate and...

(CROSSTALK)

CANNON: While I still have the yellow light, I agree with you, but you have a huge department to run. I think Mr. Lungren talked about the number, 110,000 people. You have said at one point in time that you delegated responsibility and you've been criticized for that. And on the other hand somebody pointed out you had five meetings with Mr. Sampson over a period of time. Over, by the way, 24 months. That's one meeting every five months. Do you think that was the appropriate level of oversight given what you knew then as opposed to what you know now, looking back?

GONZALES: Well, of course, in hindsight, no. I think I would have done -- I would have done the process differently. I would have had a more structured process, a more vigorous process. Again, not a formal process, but something more structured where I had more direct communication with Mr. Sampson, let him know exactly what I expected. I would let him know what things that I think should properly be considered in evaluating the performance of U.S. attorneys, who I want him to consult with, who I wanted the recommendation to come from. I would have ensured that he had at least -- there'd have been at least one face-to-face meeting with each of the United States attorneys, not just these eight, but all 93, and have a discussion about their performance. So there were some things that I think we could have done differently, should have done better. And going forward there'll be some changes to make sure that we operate the department in a way that everyone expects.

CANNON: But you learned from it, and it's a process you hope will continue, I take it. Or at least I hope it will continue. Mr. Chairman, I realize my...

GONZALES: I think we have an obligation, quite frankly, as head of a department for the American people to ensure that public servants are doing their job.

CANNON: So do I. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize my time's up and I yield back.

CONYERS: The distinguished gentleman from North Carolina, Mel Watt?

WATT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Attorney General, let me first apologize for not being here for your testimony. Unfortunately, I'm chairing a subcommittee in another committee and had to be there for a hearing that we had scheduled before we found out you were going to testify. So accept my apologies please. In the prior hearings, Mr. Attorney General, I've been devoting some time to trying to figure out what happened with the firing of John McKay. And on April 19 you told the Senate that you had accepted the recommendation to fire Mr. McKay because he had shown bad judgment in pushing an information-sharing system and in speaking to the press about the department -- about department resources.

WATT: You remember that testimony?

GONZALES: Yes. I hope, though, that I said the concern was not that it was pushing for the information-sharing system, but the manner in which he pushed it.

WATT: OK. Well, that really doesn't have much relevance to the next set of things I want to ask you about. Whatever he was pushing or not pushing occurred in the summer of 2006. The letter on the information system you discussed in the Senate was dated August 30, 2006, it turns out. And Mr. McKay's comments to the press were reflected in an e- mail on September 22, 2006. And, unfortunately, we now have evidence that -- documentation, in fact -- that Mr. McKay was already targeted for removal by Mr. Sampson in March of 2005, because the documents show that he was already on the list. So are you aware of any legitimate reason that John McKay should have been forced out as a U.S. attorney in March of 2005, as opposed to the things you had talked about that occurred in 2006?

GONZALES: I would have to go back and look at that, Congressman. Again, what I recall is that when I accepted the recommendations, I was not surprised to see Mr. McKay included, because I was aware of concerns in the way that he pushed this information-sharing project. Again -- and I applaud his efforts. He was doing his job.

WATT: OK, Mr. Attorney General, I understand what you're saying. You've got to go back and look. But there's been some suggestion, unfortunately -- our investigators asked Kyle Sampson his -- and he said that he remembered department officials being upset that Mr. McKay had pushed for action regarding the department's investigation of the murder of Thomas Wales.

WATT: And there was some concern that he was not being -- that he was being overly aggressive in pursuing the people who had murdered Thomas Wales. And so a lot of people are viewing this as being admirable, not something that somebody should be fired for. Would you agree with that?

GONZALES: That is -- certainly, it wasn't in my mind a reason why I accepting the recommendation. And I was not aware of these specific concerns within the department until very, very recently. So I don't know why -- if that was a reason why he was included as part of the recommended group, that's something you'd have to ask others involved in this process because I have not had the opportunity to do that.

WATT: And if it was a -- if that was among the reasons, would you agree with Mr. McKay who has characterized this as -- I'm going to quote exactly what he says, "The idea that I was pushing too hard to investigate the assassination of a federal prosecutor is mind- numbing," close quote. If it's true, it's just immoral; and if it's false, then the idea that the Department of Justice would use the death of Tom Wales to cover up what they did is just unconscionable.

GONZALES: I'm not...

WATT: Would you agree that it would be immoral and unconscionable for you all to be firing somebody because they were investigating the death of one of their own staff people?

GONZALES: That's a crime and we have an obligation to, of course, investigate it and prosecute those responsible for it. I'm not aware that the department, however, is using that as a reason or excuse... (CROSSTALK)

WATT: Well, you obviously haven't listened to the testimony of some of the people in the department then, because that was an excuse that was advanced initially.

And that's the problem here, Mr. Attorney General. There are so many different excuses advanced at different times, whenever it's convenient, that you have this appearance that there is something else there. And in this case, Mr. McKay also failed to aggressively, or as aggressively, prosecute, as some people thought he ought to prosecute, and pursue some voting fraud cases that were taking place after an election took place.

WATT: And it might have had some impact on a Democrat versus a Republican being elected. So if that concern that the public is concerned about, Mr. Attorney General -- if that's at the bottom of this, that would be an improper motivation for a termination, and would be illegal. Wouldn't you agree?

GONZALES: I agree that if in fact there was pressure put on Mr. McKay to investigate a case which didn't warrant an investigation -- but obviously, there may be circumstances where an investigation may have been warranted. And so we'd have to look at the circumstances of a particular case. I don't recall that when I made my -- when I accepted the recommendation, Congressman, that that was a reason for it, is his efforts with respect to voter fraud. But clearly, I do -- going back and looking at the documents and the correspondences, there was a great deal of concern about his efforts with respect to voter fraud. Because I received a number of letters from groups and outside parties...

WATT: So you didn't fire him for that reason, but somebody might have put him on the list for that reason? That's really what you're saying, Mr. Attorney General.

GONZALES: I don't -- again, Congressman, I'm assuming that this committee has spoken with everyone who provided input. And, of course, the person who was compiling the information, Mr. Sampson, would know better than I. Because I'm a fact witness. I haven't talked to these other fact witnesses about what happened here.

(CROSSTALK)

WATT: I'll yield back, Mr. Chairman.

CONYERS: Mr. Bob Goodlatte, the distinguished gentleman from Virginia?

GOODLATTE: Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. General Gonzales, welcome. I know you may not particularly feel like this is a welcoming occasion, but I do want to remind everybody here that this is an oversight hearing that is periodically held by this committee on the United States Department of Justice. General Gonzales, you have the responsibility for thousands of employees in your department. You have responsibility for the enforcement of thousands of federal laws related to criminal activity that occur in this country. And I'd like to take the opportunity -- while I know many here have focused on the issue of the termination of seven or eight, or whatever the number is, of those employees who were terminated because it was your opinion and those who report to you that they were not properly enforcing those laws and taking necessary steps to do that, nonetheless there are many, many dedicated employees of the department who are attempting to do that. So I would like to attempt to ask you about some of those other areas that are very important to my constituents.

GOODLATTE: We have, in this country, millions of jobs related to the creativity of our country. They are protected by our intellectual property laws. And we face the loss of many of those jobs, both here at home and overseas, due to people stealing other people's creative ideas. And I wonder if you could update us on your efforts to enforce our nation's intellectual property laws against theft of people's ideas due to violation of patent and copyright and trademark laws that are protected in the United States Constitution.

GONZALES: Well, we've got special units within the FBI and within main Justice, involving prosecutors to focus on intellectual property issues. We have an intellectual property task force that was stood up under General Ashcroft. I have continued that. They came out with a series of recommendations. All of those recommendations have now been promulgated and stood up. We've embarked on an education campaign, reaching out to students, informing them of the importance of intellectual property, that it's something that, as Americans, we should work to strive to protect. We've reached out to the various trade groups, movies and music industry, businesses, to talk about the importance of this. I've spoken with state legislators about the importance of state laws to assist us, because there are limited resources that we have to enforce and prosecute piracy, but perhaps states can help us. But this is an issue that goes beyond our borders. To be effective, we have to also have the support of our friends and allies overseas. And so we've had dialogues.

GONZALES: We've encouraged people to be participants in the Cybercrime Convention, which will allow for greater sharing of information that will help us with prosecutions. So I think that we've got a good story to tell. But no question about it that there's a lot of money to be made in connection with intellectual property theft. And whenever you can make a lot of money, people want to engage in that kind of activity. And so we really need to stay focused, and I look forward to working in Congress to engage in a dialogue about what additional laws, what additional tools would be helpful to help us in dealing with this issue.

GOODLATTE: Thank you, General Gonzales. Another area that is of concern to a great many Americans is the fact that we have a serious problem in this country with illegal gambling. Last year it's estimated more than $6 billion went out of the country to untaxed, unregulated, illegal sites. There are many, many ills that have been identified with gambling, particularly illegal gambling because of its lack of any kind of regulation -- family problems, problems with gambling my minors, gambling addictions, organized crime, bankruptcy; the list is long. And Internet gambling poses a very problem because it essentially puts a casino in everybody's home, much less down the street or in a community where many communities have fought against and do not have that type of gambling operations in their community. So I want to thank you for your leadership in combating illegal gambling operations, and particularly your aggressive prosecution of overseas Internet-based gambling operations that violate U.S. laws. That has not gone unnoticed and I'd like to applaud your efforts. As you know, the Congress recently passed illegal Internet gambling legislation to prohibit the acceptance of payment for illegal Internet gambling bets, showing our commitment to combating these activities. It passed by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote, including members on both sides of the aisle in this committee. And I want to know if we can count on your to continue these aggressive criminal prosecutions against illegal, online gambling operations.

GONZALES: Yes, Congressman. I want to thank the Congress for this additional tool. Obviously we're in the process now -- the Treasury Department working on regulations. They're consulting with the Department of Justice, and hopefully we can make some progress on that real soon.

GOODLATTE: The prosecution of some of these -- I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I thank the general.

CONYERS: Thank you. The distinguished gentlelady from Los Angeles, California, Maxine Waters?

WATERS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, I would like to talk with you about gangs in this country and the greater Los Angeles area. But I won't do that today, because I think that your credibility is on the line. And you've been questioned about the firing of the eight U.S. attorneys, and it appears to have been politically motivated, even though there's been some denial of that. I'd like to ask you a few questions. First of all, did you review the personnel files of these attorneys after the accusation of them being fired for a political reason? And did you see anything in their files that showed that they had been reprimanded, they had been advised, they had been charged with not handling their duties in a responsible way?

GONZALES: Congresswoman, I look forward to talking with you about gangs. With respect to the U.S. attorney issue, what I did was relied upon the judgment of those who...

WATERS: Did you review the files after...

GONZALES: I did not review the personnel files...

WATERS: Have you reviewed them at all since all of this has taken place?

GONZALES: What I have done is, I've gone back and spoken to the deputy attorney general...

WATERS: Have you reviewed the files?

GONZALES: I have not reviewed the files. I've gone back...

WATERS: So you don't know whether or not they had been advised, they had been warned, they had been reprimanded about their work at all?

GONZALES: I think the answer to that -- I don't think that they have. In fact, I think...

WATERS: But you didn't review the files, so you didn't in their files whether or not they had been advised, reprimanded, suspended or anything about their work? Is that right?

GONZALES: I did not review their files.

WATERS: You knew you were coming here today. You know we've been trying to get unredacted documents from you about what happened in your department. Did you bring them with you today?

GONZALES: No, ma'am. I brought...

WATERS: Are you resisting giving us the documents that we're asking of you that's related to the firing of these attorneys?

GONZALES: No, ma'am. I'm not involved in making production decisions. And I'm recused from...

WATERS: Would you advise the department to give us those documents?

GONZALES: I am recused from that, ma'am. I can't do that.

WATERS: Why are you recused from that?

GONZALES: Because I'm a fact witness in this investigation. And in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety...

WATERS: You simply cannot -- can you tell us whether or not you think, you have an opinion that they should be given to us?

GONZALES: No, ma'am, I'm not going to comment...

(CROSSTALK)

WATERS: All right. Thank you.

Did you meet with the president about this issue?

GONZALES: Which issue is this, ma'am?

WATERS: Did you and the president meet to discuss the accusations of the politically motivated firing of these eight U.S. attorneys?

GONZALES: Ma'am, I wouldn't -- I disagree with your characterization as politically motivated.

WATERS: I'm not characterizing. I'm asking you, have you met with the president of the United States to discuss what has been accused of politically motivated firing?

GONZALES: Again, I would not characterize it as politically motivated.

(CROSSTALK)

WATERS: Well, OK. Have you met with the president of the United States to discuss these firings?

GONZALES: I have a lot of discussions with the president of the United States...

(CROSSTALK)

WATERS: Did you discuss with the president of the United States the fact that your department was being requested to supply documents? Or did you advise the president?

GONZALES: I have not spoken to the president with respect to document production. Again, Congresswoman, I am recused from those decisions.

WATERS: Did the president say anything to you about the fact that documents had been requested of the White House and asked your opinion about whether or not those documents should be given to this committee?

GONZALES: No, ma'am, the president has not asked for my opinion as to whether or not the White House should turn over documents. And, again, I am recused with respect to production of DOJ documents and with respect to...

WATERS: OK. So you're recused and you can't talk about whether or not you believe that this committee should have unredacted copies of documents that we have been trying to get that are pertinent to these firings. You're recused from that. You have no opinion about whether or not the oversight committee of Congress should have those documents. You did not look at the files of the people who have been in the news for weeks now where you have been accused, your department, of politically motivated firings, you don't know whether they were good employees, they were bad employees, whether or not they'd been reprimanded, suspended, advised or anything. You know nothing, is that correct?

GONZALES: That is not correct.

WATERS: What do you know, Mr. Attorney General?

GONZALES: Well, generally about this whole matter, Congresswoman?

WATERS: What would you like to tell us? You're here today, and you know what we're focused on.

GONZALES: Yes.

WATERS: This is no secret. I know that you've been in a number of hearings. I know that you don't remember a lot. You have not shared with us anything about the documents. What can you tell us today that will help us to understand why eight U.S. attorneys were fired, an unusual pattern that CRS has reviewed and told us that there's a pattern here and it doesn't look good? Your reputation is on the line, Mr. Attorney General. What do you have to say for yourself?

GONZALES: Congresswoman, what I have to say is that we have provided a lot of information to the Congress about this issue...

WATERS: I asked you specifically about unredacted copies that are pertinent to this investigation.

GONZALES: Again, Congressman, I'm not involved in making decisions about the documents to be provided or not provided by the department...

CONYERS: Let's allow the attorney general to finish his response to this question.

GONZALES: Yes. With respect to redacted documents, it's my understanding -- and again, I haven't been involved. But it's my understanding that the Congress has had access to the documents. They've been able to see what's been redacted, it's my understanding. But, again, those are decisions that are not being made by me in order to preserve the integrity of this investigation, because I'm a fact witness.

WATERS: No, you're more than a fact witness, Mr. Attorney General. The buck stops at the top.

GONZALES: And I accept responsibility...

WATERS: If you accept...

CONYERS: The gentlelady's time has expired.

WATERS: I will yield back the balance of my time.

Thank you.

CONYERS: Thank you. Steve King of Iowa?

KING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the attorney general for being before this committee and submitting yourself to this process. And I think it needs to be a dignified process.

KING: And I think we need to respect you and the answers that you give. I believe that you're giving openly and honest answers here before the committee. I would reflect back on some issues that were raised, particularly by the gentlelady from California, with regard to -- and I'm not going to characterize how she characterized it, because I don't want to repeat some of the language that went into this record and have it taken down, but the behaviors and the activities of the attorney generals -- U.S. attorney's office, in that area. Then the issue is raised by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, about the investigation of a member of Congress and how that might affect the activities on the part of your office. And so I can't help but reflect upon a 500-page report that was delivered to the Department of Justice regarding another member of Congress. And that investigation has been going on since December of 2005. And that issue is still pending any kind of resolution. And I believe that the Ethics Committee in this Congress is awaiting the results of the investigation. But the question I would ask to you is, if the chairman of the Justice Appropriations Committee happened to have had been under that kind of scrutiny, could t