NO CONFIDENCE RESOLUTION -- (Senate - June 11, 2007)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to speak about the resolution of no confidence on Attorney General Gonzales. This resolution poses many currents and crosscurrents and many overlapping currents and crosscurrents. I have written down five of the currents which I believe are involved in the analysis of this issue.
First: Have I lost confidence in Attorney General Gonzales? Second: Is this resolution politically motivated? Third: Does Senator Schumer have a conflict of interest? Fourth: Will this resolution likely lead to the departure of Attorney General Gonzales or give him more reason to stay on? And fifth: Is the principal reason for this resolution to help the Department of Justice or to embarrass Republicans? It is an interrelationship and a wing of these various considerations which has led to my own conclusion on this resolution.
First of all, have I lost confidence in Attorney General Gonzales? Absolutely yes. Attorney General Gonzales has made representations which are false. He said he was not involved in discussions. He was contradicted by three of his top aides and by documentary evidence, e-mails. He said he was not involved in deliberations. Again, he was contradicted by three top aides and documentary evidence, the e-mails. He said he was not involved in the memoranda which were circulated on this matter. Again, contradicted by three top aides and documentary evidence.
He said the terror surveillance program brought no objection within the Department of Justice, and we find on examination there were serious dissents within the Department of Justice on the constitutionality of the terrorist surveillance program. So much so that Alberto Gonzales, when he served as White House counsel, was one of those who went to the hospital room of then-Attorney General John Ashcroft to get Attorney General Ashcroft to certify that the program was constitutional. So there is no doubt in my mind that there is no confidence which is residing in Attorney General Gonzales.
This is much more than a personnel matter. This is a matter for the administration of the Department of Justice, which is second only to the Department of Defense on the welfare of the people of the United States. The Department of Justice has the responsibility for investigating terrorism and antiterrorism, has the responsibility for enforcing our drug laws, has the responsibility for enforcing Federal laws of violent crime and white-collar crime. The Attorney General has the responsibility for supervising 93 U.S. attorneys from around the country who have very important positions, something that I know something about in some detail, since I was the district attorney of Philadelphia for some 8 years. There is no doubt the Department at the present time is in shambles.
The Attorney General called me before his hearing came up and asked for my advice, and I said: Set out the reasons why you asked these individuals to resign. Set out the reasons why. He did not do so. The day after a very tempestuous hearing in the Judiciary Committee, he called me again and asked for my advice as to what he ought to do. I said: Al, you still haven't responded as to why you asked these people to resign. I took the position at that time, and I take the position at the present time, that I am not going to ask the President to fire Attorney General Gonzales. That is a matter for the President to decide. I am not going to let the President tell me how to vote, and I am not going to say to him how he ought to run the executive branch on grounds of separation of power. Similarly, with Attorney General Gonzales, as to what he does, that is a personal decision for him to make. But I have been very emphatic in the Judiciary Committee hearings, as we have investigated this matter, that I think the Attorney General has not done the job and that the Department of Justice would be much better off without him.
The second question I looked at is: Is this resolution politically motivated? I think that it certainly is. This ties in to the crosscurrent as to whether Senator Schumer has a conflict of interest. I believe he does. I said so to Senator Schumer eyeball to eyeball, confronting him in the Judiciary Committee meeting. The day after New Mexico's U.S. Attorney David Iglesias testified about a conversation that Iglesias had with Senator Domenici, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee posted on their Web site criticisms of Senator PETE DOMENICI. The following day, the Democratic fundraising apparatus, led by Senator Schumer, published a fundraising letter, and there is no doubt about that conflict of interest. Senator Schumer has been designated to lead the investigation because he is the chairman of the relevant subcommittee. So I think there is no doubt about the overtone of heavy politicization and the conflict of interest.
The third consideration I have is will this resolution likely lead to the departure or give the Attorney General a reason to stay on? My hunch is the thrust of the resolution, if it seeks his ouster, is going to be a boomerang and is going to be counterproductive. My own sense is there is no confidence in the Attorney General on this side of the aisle but that the views will not be expressed in this format. Already, some who have called for his resignation on the Republican side of the aisle have said they will not vote for this resolution. Others who have declined to comment about his capacity have said that this is not the proper way to proceed, that our form of government does not have a no-confidence vote.
Is the principal reason for this resolution to help the Department of Justice or to embarrass Republicans? I think clear cut, it is designed to embarrass Republicans. It is designed to embarrass Republicans if the Senate says the Senate has no confidence in the Attorney General, and it is designed to embarrass Republicans who vote against the motion for cloture because it will be a ``gotcha'' 30-second commercial in later campaigns. It will be used to say that whoever votes against the motion to invoke cloture is sanctioning the conduct of Attorney General Gonzales, and anybody who votes against the motion to invoke cloture is going to be the recipient of those 30-second ``gotcha'' commercials.
Now, there are many reasons to vote against the cloture motion. One reason--and a dominant reason--is that the Senate has a lot more important things to do than engage in this debate on this issue. Thursday night, the majority leader took down the immigration bill. Regrettably, he had cause to because the Republican Senators who had objected to the immigration bill wouldn't allow any amendments to come up. They wouldn't allow their amendments--they didn't step forward with their amendments, nor did they allow others to offer amendments. But we were on the verge of getting a list. It was taking a little more time. The majority leader took down the bill. But the national interest would be a lot better served had we continued with the bill on Friday or perhaps on Saturday--we can work on Saturday--or return to the bill today--or still return to the bill today, instead of taking up this resolution.
Another reason why people could justifiably vote against cloture is because the investigation is not complete. That is still hanging fire, so why have the resolution before we finish our investigation?
But there is another reason: the Constitution arguably expresses a way to deal with Attorney General Gonzales, and that is by impeachment, as it is not in line to have a resolution of disapproval.
That is the British system of no confidence. It is my sense that many on this side of the aisle, if not most, if not almost all--I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. It is my sense that many on this side of the aisle--most, if not almost all--will vote against cloture because there are ample reasons to vote against cloture. But as I look at this matter, as to which is the more weighty, the more compelling, the more important, candidly stating I have no confidence in Attorney General Gonzales or rejecting the outright political chicanery which is involved in this resolution offered by the Democrats, I come down on the side of the interests of the country, and moving for improvements in the Department of Justice is to make a candid statement that I have no confidence in the Attorney General, which I have said repeatedly. It is no surprise. I am going to deal with this resolution on the merits and vote to invoke cloture.
I yield the floor.