[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3791-S3792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Attorney General Gonzales

  Mr. SPECTER. I note we are scheduled to vote on Judge Wu at 12:10. As 
ranking member, I have the balance of the time until that period. I 
choose to use it to comment briefly on a letter which I received 
yesterday from John M. Dowd, who is an attorney for Ms. Monica 
Goodling, who was counsel to Attorney General Gonzales and White House 
liaison. In this letter, Mr. Dowd asserts the basis for having Ms. 
Goodling claim her constitutional rights under the fifth amendment, and 
privilege against self-incrimination, not to testify before the 
Judiciary Committee on our inquiry into the eight U.S. attorneys who 
were asked to resign. Mr. Dowd makes the point emphatically that in 
asserting this privilege against self-incrimination, Ms. Goodling is 
not saying she has done anything wrong and explicitly denies any 
wrongdoing but cites Supreme Court authority for the right of an 
individual to claim the privilege against self-incrimination, even 
those who are innocent, as well as those who might have something to 
hide. There is a firm assertion of her innocence by her attorney and 
her own affidavit.
  I can understand the reasons for this claim of privilege and the 
reasons Ms. Goodling does not want to testify before the Judiciary 
Committee. In Mr. Dowd's letter, he references some of my prior 
statements and then says:

       Senator Schumer has no less than five times characterized 
     the Department's testimony to date as ``false'' or ``a 
     falsehood,'' and concluded that there have been misleading 
     statement after misleading statement, deliberate 
     misstatements.

  If a false statement has been made to a congressional committee, that 
constitutes a crime under title 18 of the United States Code, section 
1001. That was the basis on which the No. 2 man in the Interior 
Department entered a guilty plea during the course of the past week. 
Where there have already been characterizations, as cited by Mr. Dowd 
of Senator Schumer's statement that there are misleading statements 
which have been made, which I state is a crime, I can understand the 
sense of a potential witness in not wanting to be ensnared in that kind 
of proceeding where conclusions have already been reached by Senator 
Schumer who is in charge of the investigation.
  Mr. Dowd's letter further goes on, citing comments which I had made 
earlier, ``that Senator Schumer is using the hearings''--this is Mr. 
Dowd's statement--``hearings to promote his political party. That is 
not a legitimate reason for the Judiciary Committee to conduct 
hearings.''
  I have said in the Judiciary Committee hearings, in the presence of 
Senator Schumer, eyeball to eyeball, so to speak, that I thought there 
was a conflict of interest. In concluding there was a conflict of 
interest, I did not ask Senator Schumer to step aside. I said that was 
up to him.
  But following the testimony of U.S. Attorney Iglesias, from New 
Mexico, the very next day the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial 
Campaign had Senator Domenici's picture on it, urging his defeat in the 
2008 election. Then, shortly thereafter, there was a fundraising letter 
from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee to raise money, 
saying the Democrats were elected to clean up Washington and this is an 
example of what needs to be cleaned up.
  Any of us may be subject to comment in a political situation. Senator 
Schumer has a right to make political hay out of whatever he chooses. 
But I think it is inconsistent with leading an inquiry, and I can 
understand Ms. Goodling's decision not to testify in this context. I 
think it is very unfortunate,

[[Page S3792]]

because it is very important for the Judiciary Committee to get to the 
bottom of what has happened with the request for eight U.S. attorneys 
to resign. There is a cloud over U.S. attorneys, and I think it has had 
a distinctly chilling effect on all 93 U.S. attorneys, not knowing what 
will come next.
  It is generally agreed that the President of the United States has 
the authority, standing, right to discharge U.S. attorneys for no 
reason at all. When President Clinton took office, in one fell swoop he 
replaced 93 U.S. attorneys and no one raised any question. But I think 
not if U.S. attorneys have been asked to resign and have been replaced 
for an improper reason, for a bad reason. Suggestion has been made that 
the U.S. attorney in San Diego, Ms. Lam, was replaced because she was 
hot on the trail of political operatives who may have been connected to 
former Congressman Duke Cunningham, who is now serving an 8-year 
sentence; or the allegation has been made--it has not been 
substantiated but it has been made--that New Mexican U.S. Attorney 
Iglesias was replaced for failure to prosecute a vote fraud case. An 
extended article in the New York Times a week ago Sunday gave extensive 
analysis, which might lead to the conclusion that there was 
justification for Mr. Iglesias's resignation, or perhaps there was not. 
But that is up to the Judiciary Committee to make a determination.
  So it is unfortunate that you have a situation where witnesses are 
not coming forward. It is my hope we would not rush to judgment on this 
matter, that we would avoid conclusory statements, and that instead we 
would wait until we find out what the facts are. If these U.S. 
attorneys were asked to resign for improper reasons, I will be among 
the first to say so.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, it is true Ms. Goodling's attorney has said 
that she will take the fifth amendment. Now, as both a former defense 
attorney and a former prosecutor, I respect the right under our 
Constitution for anybody to take the fifth so they won't say something 
that might incriminate them and bring about criminal charges against 
them from their own statements. But it is a little bit odd that in a 
letter from Ms. Goodling's attorney, he speaks that she does not want 
to face the fate of Mr. Libby, or words to that effect. Scooter Libby 
was convicted of perjury. He was convicted of obstruction of justice. 
While I realize many believe he is going to be pardoned, those are the 
reasons he was convicted.
  I would have assumed that Ms. Goodling--who has been a very high-
ranking member of the Department of Justice, would come in and tell the 
truth. If she takes the fifth amendment, that's a more difficult thing. 
We won't hear from her. If she feels that what she has to tell us would 
subject her to criminal prosecution, well, that raises some serious 
questions. We hope that others will testify and that they will testify 
honestly. We'll continue to ask people. But it is very, very difficult 
to get the facts when you have key members of the Bush-Cheney 
administration taking the fifth.
  Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have not.
  Mr. LEAHY. If I have any further time, I yield it back and I request 
the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination 
of George H. Wu, of California, to be a U.S. District Judge for the 
Central District of California. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden) and 
the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson) are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Enzi), and 
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 95, nays 0, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Ex.]

                                YEAS--95

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brown
     Bunning
     Burr
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Clinton
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Isakson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Biden
     Brownback
     Enzi
     Johnson
     McCain
  The nomination was confirmed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to 
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table. The President 
will be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

                          ____________________