Preserving United States Attorney Independence Act of 2007

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, thank you. And I thank the chairman of the committee as well.

Mr. President, I rise today to speak in support of S. 214. As we all know, that is a bill to reinstate the Senate's role in the confirmation process of U.S. attorneys. I thank both Senators LEAHY and SPECTER for supporting this bill. I wish to say right upfront I believe we should pass a clean bill today. I have had the privilege of working with both Senators KYL and SESSIONS. I understand their amendments, but essentially what I have been trying to do is put the law back to the way it was before the PATRIOT Act reauthorization.

Now, at that time--March of last year--unbeknownst to Democratic and Republican Senators a provision was included in the PATRIOT Act reauthorization that essentially allows the Attorney General to appoint an interim U.S. attorney for an indefinite period of time without Senate confirmation.

Surprisingly, less than 1 year after receiving this new authority, serious allegations and abuse of the process have come to light. We now know that at least eight U.S. attorneys were forced from office, and that despite shifting rationales for why, it has become clear that politics has played a considerable role.

We know that six of the U.S. attorneys who were fired were involved with public corruption cases. Unfortunately, it is now clear that the bigger issue is what we do not know. Despite last night's production of some 3,000 pages related to the firing process, we are now faced with a growing list of unanswered questions, including:

What was the White House's role in these decisions?

In one e-mail produced last night, there is a conversation about involving the President in the process, and asking who decides what his level of involvement should be. But there are no subsequent documents showing the answers. Obviously, the question is: Who did decide and what was his role?

Who made these determinations about who to fire, and who was involved in the loyalty evaluation? Again, the documents produced last night do not answer this question, and we are still faced with several lists of targeted U.S. attorneys that beg the question: Who else was a target and what happened?

We also need to know what role, if any, did open public corruption cases play in determining who would be fired? What was the Attorney General's role in the process? Was the change to the law in March of 2006 done in order to facilitate the wholesale replacement of all or a large number of U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation?

While I believe the Senate and the House will exercise our due diligence investigating these questions, we have an opportunity right now to ensure this politicization of U.S. attorneys does not happen again.

The bill before the Senate would return the law to what it was before the change that was made in March of 2006. It would still give the Attorney General the authority to appoint interim U.S. attorneys, but it would limit that authority to 120 days.

If after that time, the President had not nominated a new U.S. attorney or the Senate had not confirmed a nominee, then the district courts would appoint an interim U.S. attorney. This is the process that was developed under the Reagan administration and it worked from 1986 to 2006. That is 20 years. It worked with virtually no problems for 20 years.

I think it is important we reinstate these important checks and balances and ensure that Senate confirmation is required. So I urge my colleagues to support the bill and to vote against all amendments.

I think it is necessary we pass this bill today, and I hope it is by a very substantial margin. I am so distressed at the politicization of the Department of Justice. I am so distressed that there is not an arm's length between politics and the law today in this country. I believe it is a very serious situation. I believe strongly that once the U.S. attorney takes that oath of office, they must be independent, objective, and follow facts wherever they lead them in the pursuit of justice. I believe that is what both political parties want and I believe that is what the American people want. There is only one way we are going to get back there with U.S. attorneys, and that is by simply returning the law to what it was before.

I also wish to point out the administration's interest in saying this is a political appointment has a limit, and I have expressed what that limit is. The only way we are going to effect the necessary changes is to pass this law this morning, and I very much hope it will be passed and passed without amendment.

I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Source