Senate Judiciary Committee w/Alberto Gonzales-7/24/07 Pt24

Part 24 of 32 Senate Judiciary Committee with Alberto Gonzales. Chairman Pat Leahy's second round of questions to Alberto Gonzales, including questions about Monica Goodling's testimony. 7/24/07KEEP IN MIND: Gonzales was given each and every question he would be asked beforehand. Nothing was a surprise - there was absolutely NO "GOTCHA!"Transcript of this portion of the hearing:LEAHY: Thank you.And I would expect an answer to the question on the Hatch Act that Senator Kennedy spoke about.When Monica Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee, she crossed the line with the unprecedented vetting of potential career hires for political allegiances throughout the department, including apparently for career assistant U.S. attorney positions. I'm not talking about political positions, but for career ones. She testified under oath that she crossed the line.Were you aware that Ms. Goodling was doing so?GONZALES: That she was crossing the line? No.LEAHY: Were you aware that she was asking about political allegiances in vetting career Justice Department?GONZALES: I don't recall being aware of that. If I'd been aware of that, that would have been troubling to me.LEAHY: Do you know whether other officials at the White House were aware she was doing that?GONZALES: Not that I'm aware.Let me just mention I'm aware -- and I think I became aware after the U.S. attorneys were asked to resign -- there was an issue that I became aware of where Ms. Goodling apparently asked a potential career hire into the D.C. U.S. attorney's office improper questions. So at some point I did become aware of that. But otherwise I can't recall being aware of other instances where she may have asked improper questions.LEAHY: So when you consider, recommend or approve candidates for appointment to career positions at the department, do you ever consider their political party affiliation or ideology or membership in nonprofit organizations or demonstrated loyalty to the president or any of those matters?GONZALES: Did I? No.LEAHY: Do you ever?GONZALES: Do I ever? No.LEAHY: Do you know whether anybody else in the department does that?GONZALES: Well, again, apparently, based upon the testimony, it appears that Ms. Goodling, as she testified, may have cross the line.LEAHY: Have you made it clear that people cannot do that?GONZALES: Yes. We have now revised policies both with respect to immigration judges, with respect to Civil Rights Division, with respect to career assistant United States attorneys, with respect to the honors programs. We've changed our policies to make it clear.LEAHY: Do you make that clear, that nobody at the White House can do that either?GONZALES: In terms of?LEAHY: Those hires.GONZALES: I don't know whether or not I have not communicated with the White House about that, no.LEAHY: It might not be a bad idea.(LAUGHTER)They also have -- they're also in the book. Feel free to contact them.You testified to both the Senate and House Judiciary Committee that you didn't speak with anyone involved in the firings of the U.S. attorneys about that process because you didn't want to interfere with the investigation. LEAHY: But on May 23rd, Monica Goodling testified under oath before the House Judiciary Committee that she had an uncomfortable conversation with before shortly before she left the department during which you outlined your recollection of what happened and asked for her reaction. Which one of you is telling the truth?GONZALES: I did have that conversation with her in the context of trying to console and reassure an emotionally distraught woman that she had done something wrong. And I tried to reassure her, as far as I knew, no one had done anything intentionally wrong. And that was the basis of the conversation that I had.She came to my office -- this was March 15th, just days after this really became a big story. And she came in and she was emotionally distraught and...LEAHY: But, you know, we sent you written questions on this yesterday -- so on the eve of this, we got answers and no place in there did you make reference to that. So it's your statement now that she did come and you did talk with her?GONZALES: Again, we had the conversation for the purpose of -- I had a -- my conversation with her, she was seeking to get a transfer. I was simply trying to console this very emotionally distraught woman.LEAHY: You did say that, in your estimation, nothing wrong was ever done?GONZALES: It was my -- and I might add, Mr. Chairman, that I had committed to you that we would make these people available as witnesses, that the department would be forthcoming in turning over documents. As far as I knew, nothing had -- improper, nothing illegal had happened here. LEAHY: So your earlier testimony was wrong.GONZALES: Senator, I wouldn't say that it was wrong. What I want to do is put it in context that, again, my conversation with her was not to shape her testimony. My conversation with her was to simply reassure her that as far as I knew no one had done anything intentionally wrong here. Mr. Sampson had just resigned. She reported to Mr. Sampson. And I think she was confused and I think needed reassurance.LEAHY: Let me ask you about just how the department is administered. You said you do administer it, and I understand that. In 2003, Congress unanimously -- unanimously -- passed the Hometown Heroes Act. This would extend federal survivor benefits to the families of firefighters and police officers, emergency workers that have a heart attack or a stroke in the line of duty. And more than three and a half years after that, the Justice Department used its regulatory authority to shift the burden of proof from the government to the families.So there's been 260 applications. You approved only 14 claims out of those 260, denied 47 others. People are really concerned. It seems like a stall. It took three years to write the regulation. Nothing gets approved. Now let me just give you one example of what your department denied. You denied benefits to a U.S. Forest Service firefighter in Arizona. He was standing closer than I am to you behind a fireline with a shovel in his hand, working to contain that. And your department said, well, they couldn't determine whether he was engaged in strenuous activity at the time of his heart attack. I don't know what you consider strenuous activity, but I think if I was standing this close to a fireline with a shovel in my hand trying to contain a forest fire, I would certainly could consider it more strenuous than my normal day's activities.What are you going to do to knock down some these kind of bureaucratic delays? This is picayune, petty. And it's wrong to the families of some very, very brave people. And it makes many of us who feel -- many, in both parties, feel the president may have signed this law. He may not have put a signing statement in, which he often does to ignore the law. But, by God, he's going to make sure the bureaucracy ignores it. What are you going to do to clear that up? GONZALES: Thank you for that question, Senator. You're right. It's taken us too long, and I apologize to the families. There are two reasons for the delay. One is, of course, the regulations, which took us much too long -- three years. Part of the fact is that we wanted to consult the medical community and with law enforcement to ensure that we had the right regulatory framework in place. But it still took us too long.GONZALES: The second area of delay is the actual processing of claims, and we have to do a better job of...LEAHY: Clear it up, clear it up...GONZALES: That's what I've said, yes, sir. I agree.LEAHY: Report back to Senator Specter and I on that, please.

Channel: News & Politics
Uploaded: November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am
Author: cspander

Length: 08:06
Rating: 5.00
Views: 1839

Tags: 24  7/24/07  committee  cspan  cssjcagpt2472407  gonzales  goodling  judiciary  leahy  part  round  second  senate  

Video Comments