A resolution urging a commitment by the United States and the international community to continue relief efforts in response to the earthquake in South Asia and to help rebuild critical infrastructure in the affected areas.

Mr. President, we are proceeding at the moment to the nomination of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States of America. He had served as a judge on the Supreme Court of Texas and has been commonly referred to as Judge Gonzales, which I shall do during the course of my presentation.

Judge Gonzales, 49, comes to this nomination to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States with an extraordinary record.

He was one of eight children, sharing a two-room living quarters with their parents. They had no hot water, no telephone. He pursued an academic career, first at the military academy; then at Rice University, where he graduated; and then at the Harvard Law School.

He went into the private practice of law and then was asked by then- Governor George Bush to work with him in the Governor's office.

Judge Gonzales then, as noted, was a justice of the Supreme Court of Texas. With the election of Governor Bush to the White House, Judge Gonzales has been White House Counsel for the last 4 years.

It is not irrelevant to note that Judge Gonzales would be the first Hispanic to be Attorney General of the United States. That is quite a dramatic rise in the legal community.

When I was elected district attorney of Philadelphia some time ago, in 1965, there was not a single Hispanic lawyer in Philadelphia. At that time, I made an effort of outreach to bring minority representation into the district attorney's office as assistants and could not find a single Hispanic. So there has been a great deal of progress. Now there are Hispanic Federal judges in Philadelphia, State court judges, city solicitors, prominent attorneys, but Judge Gonzales would be the first Hispanic to be Attorney General of the United States, if confirmed.

He will bring, I think, a unique perspective because of his minority status. I think he would have a broader view, a different view on civil rights. We have an issue which is subject to some congressional oversight where some 762 alien detainees were rounded up after

9/11, and according to a report by the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, there was never any showing of connection to terrorism or to al-Qaida or to any reason for their detention.

While we know we live in a very dangerous world, there has to be some reason--it may not be as strong as probable cause for an arrest, or probable cause for search and seizure, or even sufficiency for stop and frisk--but there has to be a reason for detention. That is something of which I think Judge Gonzales might have some greater perspective.

Judge Gonzales, I think, also would be expected to have a broader view on the immigration laws, being Hispanic, being from Texas, seeing the kinds of problems which are present both from the point of view of stopping illegal immigrants and also from the point of view of immigrants who come to this country who seek a better way of life.

Similarly, I think he might have some greater insights into voting rights. He took a position broadly viewed as divergent from the administration on affirmative action in the controversial cases involving the University of Michigan. Affirmative action, always a complicated, controversial subject, but one where differing views and a broader perspective is a quality that would be well served in the Attorney General of the United States.

He also took a broader view on the issue of what was required on parental notification under the Texas statute, drawing opposition from some on the so-called right of the party. There again, a little different view and a little broader view reflective of his background and his own attitudes.

A great deal of the hearing process on Judge Gonzales has been involved on the issue of compliance with the Geneva Convention, on compliance with the statutes of the United States which prohibit torture. A great deal has been made of a statement made by Judge Gonzales with respect to the Geneva Conventions. He has been broadly quoted on a statement that some of the Geneva Convention's limitations are obsolete or quaint. In an opinion which he circulated, he said this:

In my judgment, this new paradigm--

referring to what has happened after 9/11--

renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning

of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions.

That part of the statement is the one always quoted, and the comment on ``quaint'' and the comment on ``obsolete'' have drawn a lot of criticism. But almost nowhere has there been a followup on what he was referring to. But what he said, continuing:

. . . renders quaint some of its provisions requiring that

captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary

privileges, scrip--i.e., advances of monthly pay--athletic

uniforms and scientific instruments.

Well, when you see the reference here to ``items like commissary privileges,'' I don't know that that would be exactly something to be concerned about on a prisoner, or scrip or advances of monthly pay or athletic uniforms or scientific instruments. So in that context, to say it is ``quaint'' or ``obsolete'' is not to challenge the underlying provisions of the Geneva Convention on its important substantive provisions.

In Judge Gonzales's statements and testimony before the Judiciary Committee, he has been very emphatic about his personal opposition to torture and about the opposition of the administration to torture. He has been emphatic on his opposition to transporting detainees to other countries which permit torture to enable detainees to be tortured in other countries where they could not be under the auspices of the United States. He has been explicit in articulating the view that the CIA is bound by the same rules prohibiting torture as anyone else.

He has come under considerable criticism for the so-called Bybee memorandum which was issued in August of 2002, signed by Jay Bybee, then Assistant Attorney General of the United States, where the memorandum was requested so that there would be a full

statement and an understanding of what the law required to comply with the statutes prohibiting torture in the United States.

That memorandum was erroneous in its legal conclusions, as has been generally agreed to, and has been withdrawn by the Department of Justice. The interpretation of what constituted torture was very extreme, referring to the kind of excruciating pain and loss of bodily function, certainly not a realistic or an adequate or a definition of torture which would withstand legal analysis or legal scrutiny.

The memorandum was extreme and excessive in a statement, an articulation of executive power. One example was the statement that the President of the United States had as much authority on questioning of detainees as the President had on battlefield decisions, which obviously makes no sense. When you talk about a battlefield decision, that is a prerogative of the Commander in Chief, as it is delegated down through field commanders. But that kind of authority does not reside in the President on an issue such as the questioning of detainees.

The memo went quite far in suggesting that the President had authority to ignore statutes if he felt they were unconstitutional. There has been some question raised, although it is not explicit in the Bybee memo, about the authority of the President to immunize those who violate the law. That certainly is not lawful. When you talk about immunizing, you talk about judicial action in the context where there is a statute by the Congress of the United States authorizing immunity in a given context, immunity from criminal prosecution to disclose some information, but there is no suggestion anywhere that the President has the authority to immunize executive branch officials from noncompliance with the law.

We find Judge Gonzales essentially working as White House counsel, working for the President in a role which he was very emphatic in distinguishing from the role of the Attorney General of the United States. As Attorney General he has a responsibility to represent all of the people. As counsel to the President, as White House counsel, his responsibility is limited only to the President.

The memorandum by the Department of Justice was requested in order to have the legal interpretation as to what the appropriate line of questioning could be in order to be in compliance with the law. That was the role of the Department of Justice. It was not the role of Judge Gonzales. Then the decision as to what the questions would be, what the interrogation would be is the role of the Department of Defense, again, not the role of Judge Gonzales.

Judge Gonzales has been very forthcoming, being available and meeting with some 27 Senators, which is said to be a record in being available to everyone on the Judiciary Committee and beyond, submitting to up to four rounds of questioning, 10 rounds each, and then in some cases the third round of 15, and in one case the fourth round of 22 minutes, and then responding to very broad questions, with the New York Times commenting that the responses of more than 200 pages of answers to questions was the most expansive view by the administration of its techniques and procedures on the questioning of detainees. So there is no doubt that Judge Gonzales has responded very broadly to the inquiries made of him.

There has been a challenge that he has not answered all the questions because he could not recall specific conversations which were held years before, but that is entirely understandable.

There were questions about discussions where representatives of the executive branch got together to discuss the specifics of the Department of Justice memorandum and the interrogation techniques to be employed by the Department of Defense. One of his answers to one of the written questions propounded gives a fair summary in a fairly abbreviated form as to Judge Gonzales's role. These are his words:

Shortly after September 11, 2001, until the present, the

administration has been involved in conducting the war on

terror by gathering as much information from terrorists as we

possibly can within the bounds of law. During that time, I

have participated in several meetings at which possible uses

of methods of questioning were discussed. These meetings may

have included from time to time representatives from the

National Security Council, the Department of State, the

Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Central

Intelligence Agency, and others. In the meetings I attended,

agencies' representatives raised concerns that certain

terrorists had information that might save American lives.

The participants shared a desire to explore whether there

existed methods of questioning these terrorists that might

elicit that information. It was always very clear that we

would implement such methods only within the bounds of the

law.

That would bear repeating, ``always very clear that we would implement such methods only within the bounds of the law.'' Judge Gonzales continues:

As counsel to the President, my constant emphasis and

interest was on the last factor, ensuring compliance with the

law. It would not have been appropriate for me to comment on

issues such as whether a particular individual may have

information that would be helpful to the effort to save

American lives or to defeat terrorists or whether a certain

procedure for questioning that individual would be effective

in eliciting that information. Others with more relevant

experience, expertise, and information were responsible for

making those judgments. Instead it was my responsibility to

ensure that any method they deemed appropriate and effective

from an operational point of view was considered lawful by

the Department of Justice. To the extent I was involved in

recommendations, results, and assignments arising out of such

meetings, my activities were directed toward ensuring that

those with operational responsibilities would act only after

receiving the judgment of the Department of Defense that a

proposed course of action was lawful.

That is the end of Judge Gonzales's statement on that. His role was reasonably, clearly delineated. He represented the President. He was responsible for saying what were the outlines of the law, or what was lawful. Those practices were defined by the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, which has the responsibility to do that. And then anything beyond the legal techniques of the questions would lie with those who have the expertise, as he described it, and the experience, and the responsibility from the Department of Justice or from the Central Intelligence Agency.

There was one other statement by Judge Gonzales in response to a question by Senator Kennedy, which I think is a summary, which delineates his own role. When asked about a specific newspaper article and about events that occurred several years before, Judge Gonzales replied:

Sir, I don't have any specific recollection. I read the same article. I don't know whether or not it was the CIA [that was in reference as to whether it was a CIA request]. What I can say is that after this war began against this new kind of threat, this new kind of enemy, we realized that there was a premium on receiving information. In many ways, this war on terror is a war about information. If we have information, we can defeat the enemy. We had captured some really bad people who we were concerned had information that might prevent the loss of American lives in the future. It was important to receive that information, and people at the agencies wanted to be sure that they would not do anything that would violate our legal obligations, so they did the right thing; they asked questions--what is lawful conduct, because we don't do anything that violates the law.

So here again is a capsule statement of Judge Gonzales's role. He is representing the President. He is not looking to determine what the appropriate scope of conduct is. That is a matter to be determined by those who are involved in questioning the detainees.

That is the essence of what I believe--to be succinct and to the point of the issue. There are a great many other responses that could be read, a great many other arguments that could be advanced. I will reserve further responses on this matter as the course of the argument develops.

I thank my colleague, Senator Hatch, for coming early in the proceedings to make a cogent argument.

Mr. President, I have sought recognition today to state my support for the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States.

First, I would like to describe Judge Gonzales's personal background. He has had an extraordinary life and career. His personal story is one of dedication and courage--the sort of story

that is possible only in America, where the dreams of even the most humble citizens can be achieved through hard work and discipline.

Judge Gonzales was born in San Antonio, Texas, and raised in the small town of Humble, just outside of Houston. Although he and his seven siblings shared a two-room house that lacked either a telephone or hot running water, Judge Gonzales refused to be deterred by his difficult circumstances. He journeyed through Texas public schools, graduating from a Texas high school. Judge Gonzales then chose to serve his country by joining the Air Force and serving for approximately 2 years before entering the United States Air Force Academy for a 2-year stint. Shortly thereafter, he accomplished his childhood dream of graduating from Rice University. Following his graduation from Rice, Judge Gonzales went on to graduate from the Harvard Law School.

In June of 1982, he joined the law firm of Vinson & Elkins in Houston, TX, where he later became a partner. Not content merely to practice law without giving back to the profession, Judge Gonzales also taught law as an adjunct professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

The opportunity for service arose again when then-Governor Bush asked Judge Gonzales to leave his law firm to become the Governor's General Counsel. Thereafter, Judge Gonzales embarked upon a distinguished career in public service, including service as Texas's 100th Secretary of State from December 2, 1997 to January 10, 1999.

In what would be a capstone for many lawyers' careers, in 1999 Judge Gonzales was appointed a Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas--a job he loved, and the reason he is still today known as Judge. Although he enjoyed his job on the Texas Supreme Court, the President called upon him to serve his country as the White House Counsel, a position he filled throughout the administration's first term.

Mr. President, no one in the Senate could take issue with Judge Gonzales's remarkable rise to prominence, and the obvious talent and ability that fueled it. Indeed, I think we are all in agreement about that. Nevertheless, Judge Gonzales finds himself confronting substantial opposition from my colleagues across the aisle. The purported reasons do not justify the opposition.

First, the opponents of Judge Gonzales have succeeded in confusing the public about his views on torture. To listen to Judge Gonzales's critics, one would think that the policy of the United States was to promote or sanction torture, and that Judge Gonzales somehow established such a policy. Last week, for example, the senior Senator from Massachusetts stood on the Senate floor and accused Judge Gonzales of being a participant ``in the shameful decision by the administration to authorize the torture of detainees at Guantanamo and in Iraq.'' That charge is simply false. In fact, the White House has made very clear that the United States policy and law prohibit torture, and the President himself has insisted upon humane treatment for detainees. Judge Gonzales has been emphatic in his agreement with this position. When asked, point blank, by the senior Senator from Illinois whether U.S. personnel can legally engage in torture under any circumstances, Judge Gonzales answered: ``Absolutely no. Our policy is we do not engage in torture.'' To which my colleague replied: ``Good. I am glad that you have stated that for the record.''

Despite that exchange, and others like it, some critics, including the editors of the Washington Post and New York Times, have mischaracterized Judge Gonzales's answers to the committee's questions. In its editorial of January 26th, the Post claimed that Judge Gonzales had asserted the administration's right to, among other things, ``transport [foreigners] to countries where torture is practiced.'' In response to a question on this topic posed by my colleague from Massachusetts, however, Judge Gonzales wrote: ``The policy of the United States is not to transfer individuals to countries where we believe they likely will be tortured, whether those individuals are being transferred from inside or outside the United States.'' He added, ``I am not aware of anyone in the Executive Branch authorizing any transfer of a detainee in violation of that policy.''

In case this was not clear enough, Judge Gonzales reiterated to the Senator from Massachusetts: ``United States policy is clear--the President has directed that the United States is not to engage in torture anywhere in the world and is not to transfer detainees from anywhere in the world to other countries where they likely will be tortured.''

In the New York Times editorial, also dated January 26th, it is argued that the ``biggest strike against Mr. Gonzales'' is the fact that a ``now repudiated'' Justice Department memorandum giving a ``narrow definition of torture'' was addressed to him. This ignores several facts: First, Congress--not the Administration--enacted the definition of ``torture.'' In 1994, Congress defined torture as ``an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.''

The now repudiated Justice Department memorandum suggested that ``severe physical pain,'' as used in the torture statute, should be construed narrowly to mean the type of pain ordinarily ``associated with a sufficiently serious physical condition or injury such as death, organ failure, or serious impairment of body functions--in order to constitute torture.'' But, Judge Gonzales was not the author of this offending language, and--as I will discuss at greater length later--he has rejected this narrow view of what constitutes torture.

Moreover, while the memo has now been repudiated and replaced by one widely acknowledged to be more appropriate, neither memo altered the President's policy that detainees are to be treated humanely.

The Times editorial also cites a leaked draft memorandum from Judge Gonzales to the President. Some on the Judiciary Committee, including the Ranking Minority Leader from Vermont and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, have mischaracterized this draft memo as a disavowal of the Conventions. Again, this ignores what Judge Gonzales has written and said. The language from the leaked memorandum is often taken out of context. The relevant passage reads as follows:

The nature of the new war [against terrorism] places a high

premium on other factors, such as the ability to quickly

obtain information from captured terrorists and their

sponsors in order to avoid further atrocities against

American civilians, and the need to try terrorists for war

crimes such as wantonly killing civilians. In my judgment,

this new paradigm renders obsolete Geneva's strict

limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders

quaint some of its provisions requiring that captured enemy

be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip

(i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms, and

scientific instruments.

At his hearing, Judge Gonzales reasserted his commitment to the Geneva Conventions as a whole. He told the Judiciary Committee in no uncertain terms: ``I consider the Geneva Conventions neither quaint nor obsolete.'' And he stressed that, ``[t]he President has repeatedly condemned torture and made clear that the United States will not condone torture.'' When asked about potential changes to the Conventions, he noted: ``I'm not suggesting that the principles of Geneva regarding basic treatment, basic decent treatment of human beings, should be revisited. That should always be our polestar.'' Further, in response to another Democratic Judiciary Committee Member, Judge Gonzales reiterated, ``Yes, I do denounce torture, and if confirmed as Attorney General, I will prosecute those who engage in torture.''

Finally, none of those standing in opposition to Judge Gonzales has come close to articulating a viable case for linking the actions of Judge Gonzales to the so-called ``migration'' of a flawed interrogation policy to the atrocities committed at Abu Ghraib, and perhaps elsewhere. Despite multiple investigations, including several discussed at our hearing, no one has established a link--even an attenuated one-- between Judge Gonzales and improper interrogation techniques in the field; I have yet to see anything other than supposition and conjecture.

So, Mr. President, I think that Judge Gonzales has been clear about the United States' policy and his own views against torture, leaving no

meaningful basis to oppose his nomination on such grounds.

As I have already indicated, another issue that has been misrepresented by Judge Gonzales' opponents is his stance with respect to the Office of Legal Counsel's memorandum on the anti-torture statute, the so-called Bybee memo.

At the Judiciary Committee's last Executive Meeting, the senior Senator from Massachusetts suggested that Judge Gonzales had failed to reject the memorandum. The record established the contrary. For example, Judge Gonzales has rejected the Bybee Memorandum's overbroad statement of Executive authority. In response to the Committee's questions about the memorandum, Judge Gonzales said:

It has been rejected, including that section regarding the

Commander-in-Chief's authority to ignore the criminal

statutes. So it has been rejected by the Executive Branch. I,

categorically, reject it. And, in addition to that, as I have

said repeatedly today, this administration does not engage in

torture and will not condone torture.

During his hearing, I asked Judge Gonzales: ``Do you agree with the statement in the memo, `Congress may no more regulate the President's ability to detain and interrogate enemy combatants than it may regulate his ability to direct troop movements on the battlefield'?'' Judge Gonzales answered: ``I reject that statement, Senator.'' This is a clear and unequivocal answer.

Moreover, Judge Gonzales has explicitly recognized that Presidential authority in this area is indeed limited. Among other things, he has noted:

We in the executive branch, of course, understand that

there are limits on Presidential power. We are very, very

mindful of Justice O'Connor's statement in the Hamdi decision

that a state of war is not a blank check for the President of

the United States with respect to the rights of American

citizens. I understand that and I agree with that.

In addition, at his confirmation hearing, Judge Gonzales testified that he did not agree with the portion of the Bybee Memorandum stating that severe physical pain, as used in the torture statute, was limited to pain equivalent to organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death. In response to a question from the Committee's Ranking Member, for example, Judge Gonzales agreed that horrific conduct, such as cutting off someone's finger, would be considered torture. Nevertheless, at the Executive Meeting, the Senator from Massachusetts continued to suggest that Judge Gonzales might somehow condone conduct such as, ``[b]eating you, suffocating you, ripping out your fingernails, burning you with hot irons, suspending you from hooks, putting lighted cigarettes in your ear.''

Such hyperbole, Mr. President, serves to highlight the fact that arguments against Judge Gonzales have ignored significant statements by this nominee. Judge Gonzales has taken important steps towards accommodating the legislative branch of government through his rejection of the Bybee dicta and his concessions on the limits of presidential power. Ignoring such efforts is the wrong way to approach such an important nomination and the wrong way to assess such a fine and worthy nominee.

On a related note, my colleague from Massachusetts and other critics, including the New York Times, have seized upon the fact that the President's February 2002 directive regarding the humane treatment of prisoners is addressed to the Nation's Armed Forces to suggest that somehow the CIA has been operating without legal constraints. The senior Senator from Massachusetts, for example, has alleged that Judge Gonzales ``evaded answers to questions about whether the CIA can abuse prisoners, even if the military is prohibited from doing so.'' This is directly contradicted by Judge Gonzales's responses to the Judiciary Committee's written questions. For example, Judge Gonzales has written:

The CIA and other intelligence agencies are fully bound by

the prohibition on torture contained in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2340

and Sec. 2340A and, depending on the circumstances, by other

criminal statutes such as those defining crimes in the

special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United

States. Those statutes prohibit, for example, assault (18

U.S.C. Sec. 113) and maiming (18 U.S.C. Sec. 114). These

criminal prohibitions prevent abuse of detainees by

intelligence officers. In fact, the Department of Justice is

currently prosecuting a CIA contract employee for various

charges of assault under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 113.

Despite such answers, my colleague from Massachusetts continues to accuse the administration of sending ``the message that anything goes to our troops and intelligence officers in the field.'' To the contrary, Judge Gonzales has stressed that the ``CIA and other intelligence agencies are fully bound'' by the laws against torture. And, as further noted by Judge Gonzales, the CIA and other agencies have sought Department of Justice guidance concerning the boundaries emanating from U.S. obligations under, for example, Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture.

In fact, let me take a moment to address Article 16 directly. Some have suggested that the administration's interpretation of Article 16 has been used to justify or facilitate the cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment of aliens overseas. Just last week, for example, the senior Senator from Massachusetts accused Judge Gonzales of saying ``that the CIA is not bound by the prohibition on cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment in Article 16 of the Convention Against Torture.'' Again, this ignores the testimony of Judge Gonzales. At our hearing, Judge Gonzales noted that, when the Senate ratified the Convention Against Torture, it took a reservation equating the requirements under Article 16 with the requirements under the Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments. Judge Gonzales further acknowledged that, when interpreting these requirements, the Administration has looked to Supreme Court precedents holding that aliens interrogated by U.S. personnel outside the United States enjoy no substantive rights under the Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment. Nevertheless, regardless of the debate about the strict legal requirements of Article 16, Judge Gonzales testified that the administration has sought ``to be in compliance as a substantive matter under the Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendment.'' He also testified that, to the best of his knowledge, the United States has met its substantive obligations under the Fifth, Eighth, and 14th Amendments. This commitment has often been overlooked by the Judge's opponents.

Contrary to the claims of his critics, Judge Gonzales also acknowledged that, based on his review of the relevant investigations, the responsibility for what happened at places like Abu Ghraib extends further up the chain than the culpable guards. The Senator from Massachusetts accuses Judge Gonzales and others in the administration of a ``continuing effort to pin the blame for the torture scandal on a few bad apples among our solders.'' In reality, however, Judge Gonzales testified:

The reports [by Schlesinger, Faye, Kearns and others] seem

to indicate that there was a failure, there was a failure of

discipline amongst the supervisors of the guards there at Abu

Ghraib, and also they found that there was a failure in

training and oversight at multiple layers of Command Joint

Task Force 7. And so I think there was clearly a failure well

above the actions of the individuals who actually were in the

prison. At least that's what the reports seem to indicate, as

I review them.

At the same time, he rejected the notion that inhumane treatment was tolerated or encouraged as a matter of course. He pointed out, for example, that, even within Abu Ghraib, the gross misconduct of the night shift was aberrant:

The findings in these eight reports universally were that a

great majority, an overwhelming majority of our detention

operations have been conducted consistent with American

values and consistent with our legal obligations. What we saw

happen on that cell block in the night shift was limited to

the night shift on that cell block with respect to that first

category, the more offensive, the intentional severe physical

and the sexual abuse, the subject of those pictures. And this

isn't just Al Gonzales speaking. This is what, if you look at

it, the Schlesinger report concludes. And so what you see is

that you have got this kind of conduct occurring at the night

shift, but the day shift, they don't engage in that kind of

conduct because they understand what the rules were. And so I

respectfully disagree with the characterization there was

some sort of permissive environment.

Once again, on this point as with others, the Judge's own words refute the accusations of his critics.

Some of my colleagues have also seized upon Judge Gonzales's inability to recall certain details of meetings that occurred more than 2\1/2\ years ago

to suggest that we lack sufficient information to make an informed decision about his nomination or that Judge Gonzales is being less than forthcoming when he asserts he cannot recall a matter. Last week, for example, the senior Senator from Massachusetts told the Judiciary Committee that Judge Gonzales ``refuses to tell us anything about those meetings.''

In fact, the Senator from Massachusetts had several exchanges with Judge Gonzales on this topic at our confirmation hearing. The Senator queried, for example: ``I just want to point out, if it is true, as the Post reported, that you held several meetings at which the legality of interrogation techniques, such as threat of live burial and water- boarding were discussed; do you remember that?'' Judge Gonzales responded:

Senator, I have a recollection that we had some discussions

in my office, but let me be very clear with the Committee. It

is not my job to decide which type of methods of obtaining

information from terrorists would be most effective. That job

responsibility falls to folks within the agencies. It is also

not my job to make the ultimate decision about whether or not

those methods would, in fact, meet the requirements of the

anti-torture statute. That would be a job for the Department

of Justice. And I never influenced or pressured the

Department to bless any of these techniques. I viewed it as

their responsibility to make the decision as to whether or

not a procedure or method of questioning of these terrorists

that an agency wanted, would it, in fact, be lawful.

Given the passage of time, his inability to recall precise details is understandable. Moreover, it must be viewed in the context of what he has recalled and provided to the committee. Among other things, he has: acknowledged his participation in meetings where the questioning of detainees was discussed; explained the genesis and purpose of such meetings; described the limited nature of his role; and explained the result of these meetings. In one lengthy written answer to a question posed by my colleague from Massachusetts, for instance, he explained:

Since shortly after September 11, 2001 until the present,

the Administration has been involved in conducting the War on

Terror by gathering as much information from terrorists as we

possibly can within the bounds of law. During that time, I

have participated in several meetings at which the possible

use of methods of questioning were discussed. These meetings

may have included, from time to time, representatives from

the National Security Council, the Department of State, the

Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, the Central

Intelligence Agency, and others. In the meetings I attended,

agencies' representatives raised concerns that certain

terrorists had information that might save American lives;

the participants shared a desire to explore whether there

existed methods of questioning these terrorists that might

elicit that information; and it was always very clear that we

would implement such methods only within the bounds of the

law. As Counsel to the President, my constant emphasis and

interest was on the last factor--ensuring compliance with the

law. It would not have been appropriate for me to comment on

issues such as whether a particular individual may have

information that would be helpful to the effort to save

American lives or defeat terrorists, or whether a certain

procedure for questioning that individual would be effective

in eliciting that information. Others with more relevant

experience, expertise, and information were responsible for

making those judgments. Instead, it was my responsibility to

ensure that any method they deemed appropriate and effective

from an operational point of view was considered lawful by

the Department of Justice. To the extent I was involved in

recommendations, results, and assignments arising out of such

meetings, my activities were directed toward ensuring that

those with operational responsibility would act only after

receiving the judgment of the Department of Justice that a

proposed course of action was lawful.

That answer provides a good deal of information. The fact that he cannot recall details of those meetings is understandable. It is commonplace to forget details of meetings, particularly when years have passed. It is certainly not, given the responses that have been made, a reason to oppose someone who is universally praised for his ability and integrity.

Since his nomination, the White House has offered every Committee member a personal, private meeting with Judge Gonzales. To date, the Judge has met personally with 14 members of the Judiciary Committee, and more than a dozen other Senators.

At his hearing, Judge Gonzales testified for nearly 6 hours, answering multiple rounds of questions. There were three rounds of questions, and I encouraged Senators to participate in each round. After a complete and lengthy first round, 9 Senators participated in a second round of questions. After that, 4 Senators including myself took advantage of the third round. I made sure every Senator had ample opportunity to question Judge Gonzales. Indeed, one Senator was ultimately granted a fourth round of questions.

Contrary to the assertion by the Senator from Massachusetts that Judge Gonzales was unresponsive and he made ``a mockery of the notion of congressional oversight and accountability,'' Judge Gonzales's answers to the committee's written questions, contained in 221 single- spaced pages, provided nearly 450, often detailed, responses on issues ranging from the war on terrorism to intellectual property. So thorough was Judge Gonzales's response that the New York Times (January 19, 2005) stated that Judge Gonzales's answers to the committee's written questions comprised ``one of the administration's most expansive statements of its positions on a variety of issues, particularly regarding laws and policies governing C.I.A. interrogation of terror suspects.''

The questions kept pouring in even after the committee's hearing record closed on Thursday, January 13th, with 4 Senators submitting more than 40 additional questions for the nominee. Judge Gonzales has now responded to all of those supplemental questions. In 27 additional pages of questions and answers, Judge Gonzales has further clarified his position on several issues. He also furnished a remarkable 93-page memorandum on the Geneva Conventions prepared by the State Department as well as a letter reiterating his role in a court appearance for then-Governor Bush.

These facts refute the claims that Judge Gonzales has failed to provide us with sufficient information to evaluate his nomination.

Nevertheless, the Judge's opponents continue to clamor for more. At the executive meeting, for example, the senior Senator from Massachusetts complained that Judge Gonzales had ``not conducted a search for . . . requested documents.'' In fact, my colleague said it would be ``hard to imagine a more arrogant insult to this Committee's oversight responsibility.''

I requested that a search be conducted for any draft or final memoranda or other documents written by Judge Gonzales and relevant to the subject of interrogation techniques or torture. The White House responded by conducting a search.

On January 19, 2005, at the direction of the White House Chief of Staff, David Leitch, Deputy Counsel to the President, supervised a search of certain electronic records available in the Office of Counsel to the President. Specifically, he searched for word processing documents containing the words ``torture'' or ``interrogation'' that were located on (1) the shared Counsel's Office directory, (2) the personal and network directories used by Judge Gonzales and his assistants, or (3) the hard drive of Judge Gonzales's computer.

According to the White House, based on the practices concerning documents created by Judge Gonzales, there is a very high probability that any document of the sort described would have been identified as a result of this search. I have been advised, however, that no such documents were identified by the administration.

Moreover, the White House has represented, and Judge Gonzales confirmed, that he has no notes reflecting discussions at any meetings concerning these topics, nor does the White House believe there are any notes taken by Judge Gonzales in the files of the office.

Finally, I have been advised that, during Judge Gonzales's tenure as counsel to the President, there have never been any audio recordings or transcriptions of any meetings in the White House Counsel offices concerning these topics, or any others, so far as the White House is aware.

Judge Gonzales and the White House have undertaken appropriate efforts to accommodate the Senate by providing relevant information. Between his written answers and his testimony, Judge Gonzales has addressed his role in the solicitation and provision of legal advice, as well as his personal views on the contested issues--such as

the treatment of detainees. There is an ample record to evaluate his nomination. I urge Senators to review the voluminous materials that have been produced before coming to any conclusion.

Mr. President, another argument used by the Gonzales critics is that he refused to answer certain hypothetical questions during his hearing. Using the rejected language of the Bybee memo about a postulated Commander-in-Chief override of the torture statute, certain Judiciary Committee members repeatedly asked Judge Gonzales whether he believed the President could authorize torture in extreme and hypothetical circumstances. Judge Gonzales refused to engage in scenarios about when, if ever, torture might be sanctioned, because the President has rejected torture under any circumstances.

So, when the ranking minority member asked, ``Now, as Attorney General, would you believe the President has authority to exercise a Commander in Chief override and immunize acts of torture?'' Judge Gonzales answered:

[T]he President has said we are not going to engage in

torture under any circumstances. And so you're asking me to

answer a hypothetical that is never going to occur. This

President has said we're not going to engage in torture under

any circumstances, and therefore, that portion of the opinion

was unnecessary and was the reason that we asked that that

portion be withdrawn.

Given the administration's clear policy, this response is appropriate. Judge Gonzales has explained that the Bush administration will not engage in torture under any circumstance, so his reluctance to contradict the President's policy is perfectly understandable.

In fact, even the distinguished witnesses on the second panel of our confirmation hearing, including two law school deans and an advocate for victims of torture, were unwilling to engage in hypothetical debates about what set of circumstances--if any--might justify a presidential decision to approve torture. One witness even characterized the hypothetical about a ticking time bomb as ``fantasy'' and part of the ``mythology'' of torture. Such reticence is understandable, especially for someone, like Judge Gonzales, who serves a President who has rejected the use of torture under any circumstances.

Another of the anti-Gonzales shibboleths is that he is too close to the President to be independent. This argument ignores what Judge Gonzales, an honorable and credible man, told the Judiciary Committee. During his opening statement, and several times thereafter, Judge Gonzales acknowledged the difference between his role as White House Counsel and the job of Attorney General. At the outset of our hearing, he noted:

With the consent of the Senate, I will no longer represent

only the White House; I will represent the United States of

America and its people. I understand the differences between

the two roles. In the former I have been privileged to advise

the President and his staff. In the latter I would have a far

broader responsibility: to pursue justice for all the people

of our great Nation, to see that the laws are enforced in a

fair and impartial manner for all Americans.

That is a clear statement that he recognizes the difference between his current job and the job of Attorney General. Judge Gonzales has been the lawyer for one person--the President--and is now going to serve as a lawyer for all Americans. Judge Gonzales knows the difference and will serve honorably as the next Attorney General.

Before I conclude, Mr. President, I want to emphasize a few of the positive comments my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee have made about this nominee. At his confirmation hearing, the senior Senator from Wisconsin told Judge Gonzales: ``As you know, we have had an opportunity to work together on several different issues over the years, and I have come to respect you also. And I believe if you are confirmed that you will do a good job as Attorney General of the United States.'' At our Executive Meeting, the senior senator from Delaware noted: ``My vote, to state the obvious, is not about his character or his compelling personal story, which is compelling. He has overcome great adversity in his life, and I believe he is an intelligent, decent and honorable man.'' The senior senator from New York said, ``I like Judge Gonzales. I respect him. I think he is a gentleman and I think he is a genuinely good man.'' Such comments do not surprise anyone who has gotten to know Judge Gonzales.

As I have noted, Judge Gonzales has taken a strong stand against torture, rejected suggestions that the President is above the law, and recognized the important distinctions between the position of White House Counsel and Attorney General. So, what is behind the votes against him? Not his personal story. Not his character. Not his willingness to work with Congress. There may well be a large overhang of politics clouding this nomination. Politics, however, is a poor reason for denying the President his choice to be Attorney General. I urge my colleagues to consider this nomination based on the facts. Regardless of what administration is in power, that is a standard we should all honor.

Mr. President, the bottom line is that Judge Gonzales is a remarkable American, well-suited for the position of Attorney General, who has been forthcoming with the Senate and the American people about his role in some very difficult decisions during a very important time. He is a good man. Even his opponents acknowledge that. I urge my colleagues to support Judge Gonzales to be Attorney General.

I yield the floor.

That will be agreeable.

Mr. President, we have consent following the lunch. I think the Senator from----

The Senator is entitled to finish.

There had been a request for Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes right after lunch.

Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah be willing to await the completion of the remarks of Senator Mikulski for 10 minutes at 2:15 and Senator Schumer at 2:15 and then he will resume his remarks?

My unanimous consent request is that at 2:15, when we resume, Senator Mikulski be recognized for 10 minutes and Senator Schumer be recognized for 10 minutes and then Senator Hatch be recognized to conclude his remarks, then Senator Cornyn be recognized, and then Senator Kennedy be recognized.

It would be Senators Mikulski, Schumer, Hatch, Cornyn, and Kennedy.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object.

I understand. I ask unanimous consent that I immediately follow the Senator from California.

Mr. President, I have heard the remarks of my distinguished colleagues, and I want to say I have some grave disagreements with some of the things that have been said.

I rise in support of the President's nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General of the United States.

We all know who Judge Gonzales is. Today is a remarkable day in our country's history and a momentous day for the American Hispanic community.

Today, we are considering the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales who, when confirmed, will become the first Hispanic-American Attorney General of the United States. That is very significant. He will be eighth in line of succession to the Presidency.

In 1988, President Ronald Reagan appointed the first Hispanic Cabinet member, Secretary of Education Lauro F. Cavazos. Two years later, President George Herbert Walker Bush continued to make history by appointing the first woman and first Hispanic Surgeon General of the United States, Antonia C. Novello. Dr. Novello used to work with me as a fellow before she succeeded Dr. Koop as Surgeon General of the United States.

Just last week, the Senate confirmed President Bush's nomination of Carlos Gutierrez as Secretary of Commerce. And today, President George W. Bush sets yet another first. As Chairman of the Republican Senatorial Hispanic Task Force, I am well aware of the significance of this appointment and this moment in our Nation's history. Every Hispanic American in this country is watching how this man is being treated today and throughout this debate as we discuss the nomination. This nomination is just that important.

I know Judge Gonzales's life story. It has been laid out many times in the media and was described during the confirmation hearing. This is a story that bears repeating in the Senate. He is an American success story. He shows that no matter where anyone comes from, in America, there is no limit on how far they can go.

As many Americans know, Judge Gonzales was the second of eight children. His father and two uncles built a small two-bedroom home with no running hot water in Humble, TX, where all 10 members of this family lived, a truly humble family. His parents had no more than a few years of elementary school education, and his father was a migrant worker. Growing up in a working poor household, his family never even had a telephone.

In a story familiar to many whose parents and grandparents were immigrants, his parents knew the importance of an education for their son. After serving honorably in the U.S. Air Force, Judge Gonzales became the first person in his family to go to college. He attended the Air Force Academy and graduated from Rice University and Harvard Law School. Since then, Judge Gonzales has worked at one of the finest law firms in Texas and this country, Vincent & Elkins, he served for 3 years as the general counsel for the Governor of Texas, served as secretary of state for the State of Texas, served as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court, and became as we all know, White House Counsel for President Bush.

Yet his resume tells only part of the story. His accomplishments include many professional and civic honors. He was voted the Latino Lawyer of the Year by the Hispanic National Bar Association. He was inducted into the Hispanic Scholarship Fund Alumni Hall of Fame. He has received various awards from Harvard and Rice Universities, the United Way, the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, the League of United Latin American citizens, just to name a few. He has been a pillar of every community in which he has lived.

Despite these incredible personal achievements, Judge Gonzales remains one of the most unassuming, humble, and decent individuals I have ever had the privilege of meeting, let alone work with in government. I know firsthand that he is well qualified to be Attorney General of the United States, and I commend the President of the United States on his choice of such an outstanding individual.

I am not the only person to think this. Judge Gonzales has the support of the National Council of La Raza, one of the largest Hispanic organizations in the country. He has the support of the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Latino Coalition, the League of United Latin American Citizens, the National Association of Latino Leaders, Congressional Hispanic Conference, the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, the Hispanic Alliance for Progress Institute, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, the National Association of Hispanic Publishers, Minority Business Roundtable, the Texas Association of Mexican American Chamber of Commerce, the Congress of Racial Equality, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the FBI Agents Association, the Recording Industry Association of America--just to mention a few. Anyone who says he does not have the vast majority support of all Hispanics in this country and most all other people who understand decency and honor just do not know what they are talking about.

He has garnered support from both Democrats and Republicans. The former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, under President Clinton, Henry Cisneros, wrote an article in the Wall Street Journal in January praising Judge Gonzales, and Senator Ken Salazar, the newly elected Democrat from Colorado, testified in favor of Judge Gonzales in our Judiciary Committee. I commend Senator Salazar for sharing his opinion of the nominee.

Judge Gonzales is also supported by the former Solicitor General of the United States of America, Ted Olson, as well as members of the Heritage Foundation, the conservative institution in Washington. The philosophical, religious, and ethnic diversity of this support speaks volumes of his qualifications.

Let me take a few minutes to read from some of these letters. Janet Murguia, president and CEO of the National Council of La Raza, the largest constituency-based Hispanic organization, has given a strong recommendation of Judge Gonzales.

Not only is Judge Gonzales a compelling American success

story, it is also clear that

few candidates for this post have been as well qualified. He

has served as Texas' secretary of state, as a member of the

Texas Supreme Court, and as White House counsel, and has been

deeply involved in his community throughout his life.

We are encouraged that in response to questioning, Judge

Gonzales agreed to review the Administration's positions on

sentencing reform and articulated some reservations about the

practice of ``deputizing'' local police to enforce

immigration laws.

If confirmed, Gonzales would be the first Hispanic attorney

general and the first Latino to serve in one of the four

major cabinet posts--Secretary of State, Treasury, Defense,

and Attorney General.

While we have had our policy differences with the Bush

Administration, we are confident that Judge Gonzales is

someone who will serve his country with distinction and who

will also be accessible and responsive to the concerns of the

Hispanic community. We urge the Senate Judiciary Committee

and the U.S. Senate to confirm him as soon as possible.

She speaks for the vast majority of Hispanics in America.

Similarly, the Latino Coalition strongly supports Judge Gonzales. In a press release dated November 11, 2004, it states:

Judge Gonzales is the perfect choice for the next U.S.

Attorney General. The Judge has been an instrumental part of

the legal efforts to boost the war on terrorism and keep

America safe and secure, while upholding the highest

standards in government ethics. Judge Gonzales brings to the

Office of the U.S. Attorney General a distinguished legal

record based on his many years of work in the public and

private sector. He also brings a unique perspective and human

experience understood only by those whose families have

migrated to a foreign land with little resources and not

knowing the language. It is for this cultural depth and his

unique legal qualifications that we urge the Senate Judiciary

Committee and all members of the U.S. Senate to put partisan

politics aside so that Hispanics are no longer denied

representation in this important post. . . . We have been

honored to work with the Judge for many years now, and have

personally witnessed his ability to unite people of all

different backgrounds to get things done. He is an extremely

qualified and intelligent attorney who will serve with

distinction and make every Latino proud. We endorse his

nomination without any reservations.

He will make every Latino proud. He has up to this time everywhere he has been. He has set a good example and has done what is right in his government work.

The FBI Agents Association wrote to the committee last December:

We write to express the support of the FBI Agents

Association for the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales for

Attorney General of the United States. . . . We believe

Judge Gonzales' practical life experiences, his legal

training and education, his judicial expertise and his

close proximity to and involvement with many of the most

difficult jurisprudence issues associated with the ongoing

war against terror make him a nominee fully worthy of

confirmation by the U.S. Senate. We are also confident

that Judge Gonzales' experience in and firm appreciation

of the issues in today's national criminal justice system

will serve him and the nation well as the next Attorney

General.

I can guarantee the FBI Agents Association does not send recommendations like that in the case of people who are not worthy.

The National District Attorneys Association also expressed strong support for Judge Gonzales in a letter dated December 17, 2004. This is a bipartisan association of all the national district attorneys of the country:

During Judge Gonzales' tenure as Counsel to the President

our leaders have had frequent opportunities to meet with him

and to discuss with him issues challenging our public safety.

Through these meetings we have come to recognize both his

commitment to protecting the American public and to ensuring

closer working relationship between federal, state and local

law enforcement organizations.

With the increasingly complex challenges facing us in our

fights against both organized gangs and terrorists he brings

the skills and legal acumen necessary for this position of

responsibility. We are confident that his confirmation will

enhance the safety of our citizens from threats, domestic and

international, while safeguarding those liberties that we all

treasure.

As leaders for the only national organization representing

the local prosecutors of this nation we have the utmost

confidence in his ability to master this most challenging

position and pledge to do everything within our ability to

ensure that the working relationship between the Department

of Justice and America's prosecutors grows even stronger.

Finally, let me read excerpts from a Wall Street Journal article written by Henry Cisneros, who was the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development in the Clinton administration and was the mayor of San Antonio for 8 years. This is what Mr. Cisneros had to say:

The last four years have posed harrowingly difficult

dilemmas, especially those related to the 9/11 terrorist

attack on our nation and the military and security actions

that resulted from it. There have been successes and

failures, there have been good judgments and misjudgments--

all in the context of war, that is, a context of military

organizations under stress, of imperfect information, of

life-and-death concerns. The American people decided in

November, for better or for worse, to see this conflict

through. It would be unseemly at this juncture to use the

forum of a Senate confirmation process to try to find a

scapegoat for a war that is at a very difficult stage. In any

event, Alberto Gonzales has done nothing to alter the basic

facts that he is a seasoned legal professional, is needed by

the president, and is a person of sterling character.

Mr. Cisneros goes on to say:

As an American of Latino heritage, I also want to convey

the immense sense of pride that Latinos across the nation

feel because of Judge Gonzales's nomination. I had the high

honor of serving in a president's cabinet, as have five other

American Hispanics, but we all served in what might be called

``outer circle departments.'' The historic character of this

nomination is that Judge Gonzales has been nominated to one

of the big four--State, Defense, Treasury, and Justice. This

is a major breakthrough for Latinos, especially since it is

so important to have a person who understands the framework

of legal rights for all Americans as attorney general.

Judge Gonzales has demonstrated a nuanced understanding of

the struggles people face as they try to build a life for

their families in our country. Perhaps that appreciation

comes from remembrances of his own family's struggle. In the

Commencement Address at his alma mater, Rice University,

earlier this year, he recalled: ``During my years in high

school, I never once asked my friends over to our home. You

see, even though my father poured his heart into that house,

I was embarrassed that 10 of us lived in a cramped space with

no hot running water or telephone.''

As an aside, I understand that. We had a humble home like that. We did not have indoor facilities at first. I knew what it was like to not be ashamed of my home but not wanting to bring people there. I understand Judge Gonzales. I was there, too.

I will continue on with Henry Cisneros's comment. Remember, he was a Cabinet member in the Clinton administration, and he strongly supports Judge Gonzales. This is what Mr. Cisneros said:

On another occasion, [Judge Gonzales] said: `` . . . my

father did not have many opportunities because he had only

two years of formal schooling, and so my memories are of a

man who had to work six days a week to support his family. .

. .He worked harder than any person I have ever known.''

That is what Judge Gonzales said.

Mr. President, this is the person who my Democratic colleagues are trying to defeat--a man who has bipartisan support throughout the country, and big-time support; a man who represents the American dream to so many of us; the man who deserves to be the next Attorney General. But to listen to these comments by our colleagues--and I think over the next couple days to listen to them--they act as if somebody has to be perfect to be a Cabinet member in any administration. But certainly in the Bush administration, they must be perfect. Not only do they say that, but you will find there are many distortions of his record. They take things out of context and blow them out of proportion.

I worked closely with Judge Gonzales during President Bush's first term, and I have found him to be a man of his word. Unfortunately, in a misguided attempt to bring this fine individual down, some people, somehow, blame Judge Gonzales for the abuses that have occurred at Abu Ghraib. As many Americans, I, too, am concerned about the alleged abuses of detainees apprehended in the war on terror. When I saw the pictures in the media of detainees at Abu Ghraib, I was simply disgusted. I think all decent Americans were disgusted. They understand the abuses that occurred there were repugnant and inconsistent with our renewed commitment to promoting liberty and democracy. There is absolutely no debate about that.

In addition, there are more allegations in the media recently about individuals being subjected to water-boarding, or suffering from cigarette burns, and other acts of physical intimidation that must be taken seriously as well. I take these allegations very seriously--very seriously. Regardless of what the precise legal definition of ``torture'' is,

when you see or hear about acts of physical abuse of prisoners, even in a time of war, it is very disturbing.

It should be obvious enough that it does not need to be said, but I condemn the torturous acts that occurred at Abu Ghraib. The President condemns torture. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle condemn torture. Make no mistake about it, Judge Gonzales condemns torture. Judge Gonzales must have said that dozens of times before and after his hearing, both orally and in writing. He opposes torture, period. He could not have been clearer on this issue. To have his record distorted is hitting below the belt.

There are many Americans who believe someone in the Government should be held responsible for these abuses. I agree. All of the individuals responsible for those atrocious acts should be punished. And they are being punished. The military immediately investigated. They have immediately prosecuted. Some of them have been sentenced, and the others will be. There is no question about it; they should be punished. However, these convictions do not get as much attention from the press as the photos themselves.

The fact is, the convictions do not provide the political ammunition for those who oppose the President and this administration.

Nonetheless, just earlier this month, Charles Graner was convicted for his role in detainee abuse. He was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. He also received a military demotion and was dishonorably discharged, as he should have been.

He is not the only person who has been convicted. The military has disciplined four members of a special operations unit for abusing detainees in Iraq, including at least one case of the use of a Taser stun gun. It has also subjected two individuals to administrative punishments and four others to nonjudicial punishments. The Department of Defense has completed eight investigations and has three additional ongoing investigations.

Lest we forget, the scandal of Abu Ghraib was the subject of an internal Government investigation well before the media broke the story. I am sure that as time goes on, there will be more investigations and more prosecutions of these people who acted as non- Americans, as far as I am concerned. In the global war against terrorism, American soldiers and employees must conduct themselves honorably, and we will insist they do so--and so has Judge Gonzales insisted that they do so.

Congress takes this oversight role very seriously. I was a cosponsor to S. Res. 356, which we passed last May, condemning the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, urging a full and complete investigation to ensure justice is served, and expressing support for all Americans serving nobly in Iraq.

In August, the Defense Department Appropriations Act became law. It reaffirmed Congress's view that torture of prisoners of war and detainees is illegal and does not reflect the policies of the U.S. Government or the values of the people of the United States.

In December, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2005 became law. This law includes a prohibition on the use of funds by the Justice Department to ``be used in any way to support or justify the use of torture by any official or contract employee of the United States Government.''

In addition, at least five committees have held hearings on Abu Ghraib in the 108th Congress. Since May, the Armed Services Committees of both Houses took testimony from numerous Defense Department officials. Secretary Rumsfeld himself testified four times. Other witnesses include GEN Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; Acting Secretary of the Army, Les Brownlee; U.S. Army Chief of Staff, GEN Peter Schoomaker; and Central Command Deputy Commander, LTG Lance Smith.

The committees Interviewed General Taguba, the author of the Taguba Report, which investigated the photos of abuse at Abu Ghraib. They held hearings and heard testimony from general officers who conducted a formal investigation into the allegations of abuse, known as the Fay investigation and from James Schlesinger and Harold Brown, who were appointed by the Secretary of Defense to head the Independent Panel to Review DOD Detention Operations--otherwise known as the Schlesinger Report. The Senate also interviewed the Army Inspector General about his investigation, and interviewed Stephen Cambone, Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence. The Senate Armed Services Committee took testimony from Central Command Commander General John Abizaid, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, who commanded the Multi-national Force-Iraq; Major General Geoffrey Miller, Deputy Commander for Detainee Operations in Iraq, and Colonel Marc Warren, Army Judge Advocate General.

Despite all this, there are some people who believe that not enough has been done. And I respect their views. But it seems that now, a small but vocal group of those individuals have attempted to create an almost mob mentality--looking for any high level official in the Bush administration to take the blame. And Judge Gonzales has become the favorite scapegoat for some. People who cannot even bring themselves to speak optimistically about our prospects in Iraq in the days before and now after the day of the historic election itself, surely have no qualms about creating a scapegoat out of Judge Gonzales. This man--a committed public servant, a veteran of our Armed Forces--deserves better.

Let us not lose focus here. Judge Gonzales has been nominated to be the Attorney General--not the Secretary of Defense.

And when these abuses occurred, Judge Gonzales was not the Secretary of Defense. It was not his responsibility to tell soldiers which specific interrogation tactics to use.

In fact, it was not even his responsibility to provide legal advice to the Secretary of Defense on torture or any other subject. Providing legal advice to executive branch departments and agencies is the role of the Department of Justice. His primary role was to provide legal advice to the President of the United States and other White House officials.

Now if Judge Gonzales is confirmed, it will become his responsibility to become the Nation's principal law enforcement official and help see that each American receives equal justice under the law.

But it is inappropriate and unfair to blame Judge Gonzales for legal advice given by somebody else in the Department of Justice years before he was even nominated to work in the White House.

For example, some opponents of Judge Gonzales have gone on at length about the so-called Bybee memo. Before I get into the specifics of this memo, let me bring you back to the months following September 11, 2001. All of us here remember exactly where we were when the planes crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania that morning. None of us will forget the feelings of vulnerability we all felt in the days, weeks and months following the attack.

President Bush has rightly made preventing another terrorist attack on U.S. soil his No. 1 priority. I know that my fellow citizens in Utah share the President's priorities when it comes to fighting terrorism. In fact, the first major international event that took place after 9/11 was held in Salt Lake City when my community hosted the winter Olympic games.

Here in the Senate, a mere month after the attack, we were terrorized by a letter sent to Senator Daschle's office containing anthrax. The distinguished ranking member of the Judiciary Committee was mistreated and threatened. Staffers, workmen, and visitors stood in line all day to be screened for anthrax, and hundreds of individuals took strong antibiotics as a preventative measure. I recall that time period where every day you would wake up wondering whether something terrible was going to happen that day.

The Bush administration, too, was facing difficult questions. We all thought that another terrorist attack could come at any moment, and it would be incredibly difficult to predict when or where such an attack would occur because our enemy acted in a clandestine manner. They dressed as civilians, not as soldiers. They did not attack our military but tens of thousands of innocent civilians, urban centers, and government buildings. These

individuals did not come from one specific country. They were a fanatic, ideological enemy with international reach. They could be anywhere. And they had the money to finance their terrorist activities.

It was during these early months that the administration explored what its options were and how they should act in confronting this unique enemy, one that fought not in uniforms on battlefields, not for a particular nation but in blue jeans and American civies.

Some are claiming that the President relied on the Bybee memo in formulating his policy with respect to interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib. Let's take a look at these documents. First, the so-called Bybee memorandum was not written by Judge Gonzales, in spite of the implications by some. It was written by Jay Bybee who, at that time, was the Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice, and is now a distinguished judge on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. That is why some people call it the Bybee memo. They could not call it the Gonzales memo. It is not the Gonzales memo, has never been the Gonzales memo.

The memo is dated August 1, 2002. Remember that date. The memo addresses the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It does not analyze the Geneva Convention. Let me just mention that this is a scholarly piece of analysis. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with its legal conclusion, there can be little doubt that this 50-page, single-spaced document with 26 footnotes is a thoughtful and thorough analysis.

Let me also say that this memo does not tell the President to use torture in Iraq. Rather it tries to define what torture is from a purely legal perspective.

Let's compare the Bybee memo with the President's actual memorandum on the treatment of detainees. The subject of this memo is the humane treatment of al-Qaida and Taliban detainees. The President's memo was written on February 7, 2002. This is 6 months before the Bybee memorandum. So there is absolutely no way the President could have relied on the August 1, 2002, Bybee memo because it did not exist at the time he issued his definitive February 7 directive, the one that he and others followed.

Let me be clear: I am not saying the Justice Department never considered the Convention Against Torture prior to August 1, 2002. In fact, given the voluminous length of the analysis, it probably took some time to write. But to suggest this Bybee memo, which addresses a different statute, a statute that is nowhere mentioned in the President's memorandum, was indispensable in crafting the President's decision is simply false for the simple reason it did not exist at the time.

What some of my Democratic colleagues are trying to do is hold Judge Gonzales responsible for a memorandum he did not write and that came from the Justice Department which he did not direct.

The Bybee memo asks an important question: What is torture? This is a critical question to ask in the middle of a war on terror in which our enemies have made it clear that they will not observe the Geneva Conventions or any other rule of civilized conduct. Judge Gonzales received the Bybee memo, but some of my friends across the aisle are almost suggesting that he actually wrote it. He did not. He had nothing to do with it. In fact, they criticize him because they believe he did not object to the memo at the time he received it. But the fact is, we do not know what his private legal advice was to the President on the Bybee memo because that advice is privileged advice. And Presidents do not want their counsel divulging privileged advice.

In fact, we should think twice before we ever proceed down the path of attempting to require the White House Counsel to divulge to the Congress in an open hearing precisely what legal advice he gave to the President on an inherently sensitive matter such as those that directly relate to national security.

When all is said and done, Judge Gonzales did not supervise Jay Bybee. He did not supervise Attorney General Ashcroft. It was not his job as White House Counsel to approve of memos written by the Justice Department. And that memo of February 7 said the detainees should be treated humanely. That was the President's position.

I have a lot more I want to say about this, but I notice the distinguished Senator from New York is here and wanted to say a few words before we break for lunch. I will interrupt my remarks. I couldn't interrupt a few minutes earlier. I will come back to this subject.

I hope the Chair will allow the senior Senator from New York to have a few extra minutes. I would be happy to sit in the chair, if needed. But I will relinquish the floor and ask unanimous consent if I can finish my remarks after the luncheon; is that possible?

Immediately after the consent order.

Especially being interrupted and accommodating colleagues on the other side. I would like to finish.

Following Senator Mikulski?

I have a little bit more. It could be as long as a half hour.

Mr. President, I thank the ranking member.

I rise today to explain why I deeply regret I cannot vote to confirm Alberto Gonzales to be the next Attorney General.

I believe as a general rule the President is entitled to the Cabinet of his choice. But one Department, the Department of Justice, always deserves special attention from Congress because it does not exist solely to extend the President's policies.

Though the Attorney General serves under the President, he must independently interpret the laws as written by Congress and be truly the country's chief law enforcement officer.

I cannot emphasize this enough. The Department of Justice must be independent from the White House. The FBI must be independent. The U.S. attorneys must be independent. The Criminal Law Division, the Environmental Law Division, the Civil Law Division must all be independent. The Solicitor General's Office, which argues before the Supreme Court, must be independent. The Office of Legal Counsel, which is charged with interpreting the law of the executive branch, must be independent. The Civil Rights Division must be independent.

These departments are charged with nothing less than following, interpreting, and implementing the law of the United States of America. The Department of Justice is in charge of defending the Nation in court. It is in charge of advising the rest of the Government about what the law means. It is in charge of overseeing the investigations of the FBI, and it is in charge of deciding when to prosecute criminals and send them to prison. This is obviously a big portfolio.

The head of the Department of Justice is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. As such, the Attorney General is in charge of 59 separate divisions within the Department of Justice, which cover more than 110,000 employees. In my view, before we vote to confirm to put someone in charge of all this awesome power--and it truly is awesome--it is important for us to know what that individual thinks about the major policies the Department will be implementing. And that is where I have been disappointed by the confirmation process for Judge Gonzales.

When President Bush nominated Judge Gonzales, I think many of us were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the hearings crystallized how little we knew about his own policy views, how little we knew about his qualities for leadership, his policy views, his management style, his strength of character, and his personal beliefs in those areas where he sets the tone and the policy. I think this was a great missed opportunity.

John Ashcroft served 6 years in the Senate. We knew his service on the Judiciary Committee. We knew about his views. One could decide about his personal views, yes or no. Judge Gonzales has spent so many years serving President George Bush. If confirmed, this will be the fifth job George Bush appointed Judge Gonzales to over the past decade. The hearings were his first real opportunity to show his own views. I think this is why the hearing process became so important in many of our views.

This was a crucial opportunity for Judge Gonzales. Many of us were prepared to vote for him. If there is a single issue that defines this confirmation process, it is what Judge Gonzales thinks about torture and brutal interrogation practices.

He reminded us again and again that both he and the President condemn torture. But as we know from the Bybee memo of August 2002, for at least 2 years, the Federal Government followed a definition of torture that was excessively narrow. In fact, it was considered so incorrect that the Department of Justice revoked it on the eve of Judge Gonzales' hearing.

That memo defined torture as:

Equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious

physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily

function, or even death.

For me, in addition to its clear legal and moral importance, the issue of torture became the main way for assessing this next Attorney General. And it was very important for him to state in unambiguous terms what he thought. It was as important a way for us to assess how he approaches a problem as any.

In his opening statement, Judge Gonzales offered a clear, absolute condemnation of torture. He said flatly:

Torture and abuse will not be tolerated by this

administration.

At this point, at the beginning of his testimony, there were no ifs, ands, or buts. But after that, his testimony, both verbal and in writing, was full of ambiguities. It seemed intended not to make his views clear, but to shield his views, and it seemed to narrow the definition of what counts as torture.

For instance, at the hearing, at one point, Judge Gonzales told Senator Leahy, our ranking member, ``I reject that opinion,'' referring to the Bybee opinion. But at another point in the hearing, he told the same Senator, Senator Leahy:

I don't have a disagreement with the conclusions then

reached by the department.

Those statements are clearly in conflict, and leave me with no idea what he thinks about the Bybee memo.

I also note that Judge Gonzales clearly did not do everything he might have done to try to answer the questions put to him.

In his written testimony, especially to Senator Kennedy, Judge Gonzales refused to provide the answers or the documents requested. He even refused to conduct a search that would have refreshed his memory.

Let me quote the multiple times Judge Gonzales refused to answer Senator Kennedy's questions, and these are all quotes:

I do not know what notes, memoranda, e-mails or other

documents others may have about these meetings, nor have I

conducted a search.

Point 2:

I have no such notes, and I have no present knowledge of

such notes, memoranda, e-mail, or other documents and I have

not conducted a search.

Point 3:

I have no present knowledge of any non-public documents

that meet that description. However, I have conducted no

search.

Point 4:

I have no present knowledge that there are any documents of

the sort requested in the question, although I have not

conducted an independent search for such documents.

Point 5:

I have no present knowledge of any such documents or

materials, although I have not conducted a search.

Point 6:

I have no present knowledge of any such records, although I

have not conducted a search.

The last formulation he repeated in two additional instances.

These are not adequate answers to satisfy the nomination process for the confirmation of a person to be the next Attorney General, nor do they bode well for the Judiciary Committee's and this Congress's oversight responsibilities for the Department of Justice.

Judge Gonzales also refused to provide many documents that we requested. In specific, I asked him to provide me with a copy of the final version of his January 2002 memo to the President. That is very important because earlier memos that he had written were different. It was important, if this was his final opinion, that we have an opportunity to look at it, because that opinion was definitive and dispositive.

The January memo is a well known one, where he wrote that the war on terror ``renders obsolete Geneva's strict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners.'' If that was only a draft, as he said, as he had emphasized, then I believe it is imperative for us to see the final version, and he refused me that opportunity. He wouldn't provide the memo, saying the White House had declined to allow it.

To tell you the truth, because of the prior history, that simply is not good enough for me.

Also of importance in the questions that he did answer, he seemed to continually narrow, again, the definition of torture. I saw this as a retreat from his original condemnation of torture and abuse and I thought it showed that he was trying more to defend the President's policies than to demonstrate his own views.

That, in my view, is the nub of the problem. Here he was no longer the President's man, he was going to be the

chief law enforcement officer, independent, head of 110,000 people, with all kinds of major departmental responsibilities--environmental law, civil rights law, the Solicitor General, as I stated earlier in my remarks. I saw this narrowing as a retreat from his original condemnation of torture and abuse, and I thought it showed that he was trying, again, more to defend the President than to talk for himself. Let me give an example.

At the hearing he told Senator Durbin that even under the laws implementing the Convention Against Torture:

aliens interrogated by the United States outside the United

States enjoy no substantive rights under the 5th, 8th, and

14th Amendments.

If this is Judge Gonzales's view, it is a significant gap in the prohibition against abuse.

I gave him the opportunity to clarify this issue. In written testimony he confirmed the thrust of the answer, stating to me:

There is no legal prohibition under the Convention Against

Torture on cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment with respect

to aliens overseas.

In another written question, I asked Judge Gonzales to specify his own views again on specific harsh interrogation methods. I wrote to him:

Putting aside legal interpretations, in your own personal

opinion, should the United States use forced nudity, the

threatening of detainees with dogs, or ``water-boarding''

when interrogating detainees?

That was my question in writing. He began his answer by stating:

I feel that the United States should avoid the use of such

harsh methods of questioning if possible.

I was asking for a statement by the man. ``If possible'' is a major loophole, and I truthfully don't know what it means. I don't know how big that loophole is intended to be.

As I was reviewing the correspondence, I was struck, in particular, by a letter that the committee received from a group of 12 esteemed former military leaders--generals, admirals, even a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This letter was signed by Brigadier General David M. Brahms, Retired, U.S. Marine Corps; Brigadier General James Cullen, Retired, U.S. Army; Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, Retired, U.S. Army; Lieutenant General Robert Gard, Retired, U.S. Army; Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, Retired, U.S. Navy; Rear Admiral, Retired, U.S. Navy; General Joseph Hoar, Retired, U.S. Marine Corps; Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, Retired, U.S. Navy; Lieutenant Claudia Kennedy, Retired, U.S. Army; General Merrill McPeak, Retired, U.S. Air Force; Major General Melvyn Montano, Retired, U.S. Air Force National Guard; and General John Shalikashvili, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Let me paraphrase the letter. They write as retired military professionals in the U.S. Armed Forces to express their deep concern about the nomination of Alberto Gonzales and they urge us in the hearing to detail his views concerning the role of the Geneva Conventions in U.S. detention and interrogation policy and practice. They go on to say:

Mr. Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in

shaping U.S. detention operations. . . . It is clear that

these operations have fostered greater animosity toward the

United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts,

and added to the risks facing our troops around the world.

They then talk about the memo Judge Gonzales wrote to the President on January 25, 2002, advising him the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the conflict then underway in Afghanistan. They say more broadly that he wrote the war on terrorism presents a new paradigm that renders obsolete the Geneva protections.

Then they go on to say, and I think this is important:

The reasoning Mr. Gonzales advanced in this memo was

rejected by many military leaders at the time, including

Secretary of State Colin Powell who argued that abandoning

the Geneva Conventions would put our soldiers at greater

risk, would ``reverse over a century of U.S. policy and

practice in supporting the Geneva Conventions,'' and would

``undermine the protections of the rule of law for our

troops, both in this specific conflict [Afghanistan] and in

general.''

That is a huge problem out there because at best, these hearings and the written questions and answers which are voluminous are really unable to clarify any of the positions of Alberto Gonzales, the man, Alberto Gonzales, head of one of the largest and most powerful agencies of the American Government, the U.S. Department of Justice.

We look at the Department of Justice one way, but most Americans look at it as being a major citadel of power in the United States. And on occasion, we have seen that power exercised. If you are going to set the policy, if you are going to set the tone, if you are going to be the head of this Department, I want to know what you as a man, or as a woman, think, and particularly at this time.

Yes, it is clear that the problems we will face in the future are most likely to be with respect to non-state actors, and with respect to torture, which I am speaking about now. Therefore, it is extraordinarily important to know what this man thinks. If you ask me today, despite the hearings, despite 200 pages of questions and answers, I cannot really tell you. I cannot really be sure that if the White House says one thing, the head of the Department of Justice would be willing to stand up and say another. I just do not know, based on the past jobs he has had and his past performance, if he is prepared to be independent.

I have to say to this body that is important. Every one of us knows that Janet Reno was an independent Attorney General. I do not know that Alberto Gonzales will be. I don't know his management style. I don't know the vision he has for this Department. I don't know the goals he would set.

I know he is an extension of the President. I know that he can legally enable the President. I know he gives the President advice, and I think much of that advice has brought us into a terrible place where our military could well in the future be jeopardized.

I am one, frankly, who believes the Military Code of Justice has stood the U.S. military in good stead. I am one who believes the Geneva Convention--the Convention Against Torture--is the right thing. I am one who believes we should follow those, even in this non-state war.

I want to comment on one other issue, and then I will yield the floor.

I think Judge Gonzales is going to be confirmed. He is a talented lawyer and has a compelling life story. I certainly want to work with him.

I want to say one thing about some who may say this is a qualified Hispanic, and indeed he is. Nobody should think that the Hispanic community is unified on this nomination. I will put into the Record, if I may, letters from the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, certain editorials from newspapers, the statement of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund, a statement of the Mexican-American Political Association, a letter from Major General Melvyn Montano, and other letters.

I ask unanimous consent to have them printed in the Record.

Mr. President, in summary, I very much regret this, but I think the U.S. Department of Justice is a unique Department. I think whoever is the head of it has to stand on his own two feet, has to be totally independent of Congress, of the White House, and has to be willing to submit to rigorous oversight by the Senate, by the Judiciary Committee, and has to set a tone which enables the Department of Justice to function as a fair and independent voice of the American people, as its chief law enforcement officer.

I very much regret that I will vote no on this nomination.

I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will not at this point speak quite as long. Because I will not use the same amount of time now, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, be allowed to follow my remarks.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a number of recent editorials regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.

Mr. President, today we are beginning the debate on the nomination of Alberto Gonzales to be Attorney General of the United States.

When I first heard of this nomination last November, I was hopeful. I saw this nomination as a chance for some long missing accountability on some of the most pressing issues facing our Nation. I noted at the time that I like and respect Judge Gonzales. I met with him soon after his designation and wrote to him, following up on that meeting, to inform him in advance of his confirmation hearing about issues that would be raised about several key issues. I listened carefully to him during our confirmation hearing.

The road he has traveled from being a 12-year-old boy selling soft drinks at football games, all the way to the State House in Texas and to the White House, is a tribute to him and to his family. In spite of our disagreements on issues, I have sought to maintain a cordial personal working relationship with Judge Gonzales during his years as President Bush's counsel. As Senator Kennedy has said, I dearly wish that we could vote for that compelling story, and not for the nominee whose record is before us. In my case, I will vote based on the record.

It saddened me to call Judge Gonzales last week and tell him that I could not in good conscience vote to confirm his nomination to be Attorney General, the chief law enforcement officer of the Nation. He is not the person for this job.

My reasons for voting against Judge Gonzales arise from the need for accountability and derive from the nominee's involvement in the formulation of a number of policies that have tarnished our country's moral leadership in the world and put American soldiers and American citizens at greater risk.

When President Bush announced this nomination he said that he chose Judge Gonzales because of his ``sound judgment'' and role in shaping the Administration's policies in the war on terrorism. Based on the glimpses of secret policy formulations and legal rationales that have come to light, I believe his judgments not to have been sound. On the contrary, several of this Administration's legal policies have been exceedingly harmful to our national interests.

As Attorney General, the nominee's judgment about our laws would be of enormous consequence.

This is a different type of Cabinet position than many others. In many Cabinet positions, such as the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Treasury, and others, the Cabinet member states the President's position. They state the President's position and carry out the President's policies. The Attorney General is different. The Attorney General is not the Attorney General of the President; he is the Attorney General of the United States. This is a position where the cabinet member has enormous flexibility to carry out decisions--to bring prosecution or withhold it, to begin an investigation or to withhold an investigation, to determine to go into a place where he believes there may have been a voting rights violation or to say there is none. This individual must be independent of the President.

Judge Gonzales has championed policies that are in fundamental conflict with decades of laws, sound military practice, international law, and human rights. He remained silent for almost 2 years about a deeply flawed and legalistic interpretation of our Nation's torture statute. He also accepted a patently erroneous interpretation of the torture convention and apparently believes that the President, when acting as Commander in Chief, is above the law.

When I asked Judge Gonzales if he agreed with the Bybee memo's very narrow reading of the law, he replied: ``I don't recall today whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis, but I don't have a disagreement

with the conclusions then reached by the Department.'' This is the memo which concludes that ``physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.'' Even the Justice Department repudiated this legal memorandum, once it became public.

Under his restrictive redefinition such practices as threatening a prisoner with a firearm in a mock execution, ``waterboarding'' a person to make him experience the suffocating effects of drowning, and, as Senator Kennedy noted, perhaps even cutting off a person's fingers one joint at a time would not amount to ``torture.'' But surely we consider these practices torture when done to a member of the U.S. military or to an American citizen.

How can we, the greatest Nation on Earth, stand up and say such acts are not torture if committed against foreign detainees?

Perhaps most disturbing of all as a legal matter is the nominee's positing of the President as above the law. Nothing is more fundamental about our constitutional democracy than our basic notion that no one is above the law. Yet at his June 2004 news conference and again in his testimony before the Judiciary Committee he indicated that he views the President to have the power to override our law and, apparently, to immunize others to perform what would otherwise be unlawful acts. This is about as extreme a view of executive power as I have ever heard. I believe it is not only dead wrong as a constitutional matter but extremely dangerous. The rule of law applies to the President, even this President.

From the time of George Washington to George W. Bush, we have always maintained that in our Nation no one is above the law--not the President, not a Senator, not a judge, not anyone in our country.

Ironically, it was the administration of this President's father that urged the Senate to ratify the torture convention. It did so to make clear that the United States condemns torture and to protect Americans from this barbaric practice. But if the U.S. President does not feel bound by the torture convention, then neither will other foreign leaders.

Ultimately, the Attorney General's duty is to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law--not to work to circumvent it. Both the President and the nation are best served by an Attorney General who gives sound legal advice and takes responsible action, without regard to political considerations--not one who develops legalistic loopholes to serve the ends of a particular administration.

The Attorney General appointed by the President's father remarked: ``Nothing would be so destructive to the rule of law as to permit purely political considerations to overrun sound legal judgment.'' Judge Gonzales demonstrates a lack of independence from the President, something that we cannot have in the chief law enforcement officer in the nation. He cannot interpret our laws to mean whatever the President wants them to mean. To do so would deny us the constitutional protections upon which this nation was founded. The Attorney General is supposed to represent all of the American people, not just one of them.

We have seen what happens when the rule of law plays second fiddle to the President's political agenda. This Administration has taken one untenable legal position after another regarding the rule of law in the war against terror. It will not admit to making mistakes. It takes action only after mistakes are made public and become politically indefensible.

Given the Republican Party's leadership in Congress, the Federal courts have provided what little check there has been on this President's claim of unfettered Executive power. The Congress has failed to do any real oversight of that use of power.

Judge Gonzales's nomination initially seemed like a breath of fresh air. I have noted how much I personally like him. I think most people do. But as I told the nominee when we met within days of the announcement of his nomination, these confirmation proceedings matter. The proceedings matter because it is the responsibility of this Senate to explore Judge Gonzales's judgment and actions in connection with the tragic legal and policy changes formulated in secret by this administration and still cloaked from congressional oversight and public scrutiny. Part of it is the fault of the Congress which has not conducted vigorous oversight, but a large part of this problem is due to an administration that has not answered the questions asked by both Republicans and Democrats.

America's troops and citizens are at greater risk because of those actions and their terrible repercussions throughout so much of the world. America's moral standing and leadership have been undercut. The searing photographs of Abu Ghraib have made it harder to create and maintain the alliances we need to prevail against the vicious terrorists who threaten us, including those who struck America 9 months into this President's first term.

Those abuses at Abu Ghraib have served as recruiting posters for the terrorists. That is why this process matters. The confirmation process shows that on the question of judgment, Judge Gonzales is the wrong man for this job.

After his recent inaugural address, I praised President Bush for the eloquent words he said about the United States' historic support for freedom. But to be true to that vision, we need a government that leads the way in upholding human rights, not one that secretly develops legalistic rationalizations for circumventing human rights.

To reclaim our moral leadership in the world, and to become a true messenger of hope instead of a source of resentment, we need to acknowledge wrongdoing and show accountability for mistakes that have been made.

We have seen departures from our country's honorable traditions, practices, and established law in the use of torture, originating at the top ranks of authority and emerging at the bottom. At the bottom of the chain of command, we have seen a few courts martial. But at the top, we have seen medal ceremonies, pats on the backs, and promotions.

Between these two dissonant images, there is a growing accountability gap. The administration's handling of this confirmation process, which could have helped to narrow the gap, has served to widen it.

I believe in redemption in public life, as in spiritual life, but to get to redemption, first there has to be accountability. This administration has a large and growing accountability deficit. Judge Gonzales, who could have become a part of the solution, remains a part of the problem.

Now more than ever we need an Attorney General to serve all Americans. There is much that has gone wrong that this administration has stubbornly refused to admit or correct. For this democratic Republic to work, we need greater openness and accountability. It is with those critical considerations in mind that I must vote against this nomination.

I believe under the earlier order, the Senator from California is now going to be recognized.

Then, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Hatch, Senator Schumer be recognized.

Mr. President, I understand we are coming back at 2:15 p.m. after the caucuses?

I ask unanimous consent that we lock in 10 minutes at 2:15 p.m. for the Senator from Maryland, Ms. Mikulski.

I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania, and I yield the floor.

Yes, at 2:15. We don't have to break at 12:30. We could continue on. I was off the floor. What was the request?

I don't have the floor.

If the Senator will withhold, how much longer does the Senator from Utah have?

Reserving the right to object, it would be Senators Schumer, Hatch, Cornyn, and Kennedy?

I have no objection.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 356 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon table, and that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record, without intervening action or debate.