KATRINA'S ROUGH RIDE
Volume XII No. 22 - August 23, 2007
Without a doubt, Hurricane Katrina was the most devastating hurricane to ever hit U.S. shores. Hurricane Camille was stronger and the Galveston hurricane was more deadly, but Katrina did more than damage property and take lives. It shook the nation’s confidence in the state of our infrastructure and revealed a stunning incompetence in our disaster preparedness, recovery and reconstruction.
Now, with the two-year anniversary of this disaster just a few days away, the nation is again suffering the collective emotional hangover from yet another infrastructure tragedy – the I-35 bridge collapse in Minneapolis. And once again, politicians have clamored for a clichéd response: more money will solve our problems. It is as if there is a sign in the Capitol: “In Case of Emergency Grab Cash.” But levees aren’t built with bags of money and you can’t construct a bridge with bricks of gold, as evidenced by the fact that much of the money initially provided after Katrina has not been spent. As we’ve learned time and again, getting the money is easy; rebuilding smarter and better is not.
Several factors have combined to reduce the effectiveness of the money spent rebuilding in the Gulf. One major problem is that reconstruction efforts have been sullied by too many examples of waste, fraud, and abuse to enumerate. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided several of the most famous examples of these problems. In the days and weeks after Katrina, FEMA spent millions shipping thousands of pounds of excess ice back and forth across the nation, then stored it for nearly two years, before finally getting rid of it last month when it was determined the ice was contaminated and couldn’t be used again anyway. FEMA also purchased far too many travel trailers to use as temporary homes, some of which had to be left in storage in Arkansas because they weren’t suitable for use in the Gulf Coast environment. Some of the extra trailers are now being dumped on the market returning pennies on the dollar to taxpayers.
Federal efforts to benefit local economies by directing reconstruction contracts to local firms have also been undercut. National firms have used all kinds of tricks to pull down these lucrative contracts, sometimes turning to the local firms who lost out in the bidding to be subcontractors. In many instances, the federal government hires a large prime contractor who hires a subcontractor who in turn hires a subcontractor, with taxpayers losing money all the way down the line and the final subcontractor who actually hammers the nail receiving a pittance of what the initial contractor was paid for the job.
Cronyism has significantly impacted what and who benefits from Katrina aid. Just last week, a Bloomberg News investigation found that Governor Haley Barbour's (R-MS) family has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars from Katrina-related work, including a nephew who made a pirate’s booty in lobbying fees after his uncle Governor appointed him to a Katrina reconstruction panel
Finally, Congress continues to have its own problems prioritizing how our nation’s infrastructure dollars should be spent. Twice since Katrina, lawmakers have rejected attempts to prioritize water infrastructure funding to ensure that the most critical projects—like increased flood and storm protection in populated areas—get to the front of the line. And earlier this year, Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) attempted to add more than $600 million to the Iraq emergency spending bill to build a new boondoggle navigation lock on New Orleans’s Industrial Canal. This project was vehemently opposed by the residents of the Lower Ninth Ward because their homes were flooded when the levee lining the same Industrial Canal failed in the wake of Katrina.
Monday, August 27, 2007
Indiana's delegates take care of donors
August 20, 2007
Indiana's delegates take care of donors
9 House members have added $148M in pet projects into bills
By Maureen Groppe
Star Washington Bureau
August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Democratic Congressman Pete Visclosky, who represents part of Northwest Indiana, has used his seat on the committee that appropriates federal dollars to steer $12.5 million to out-of-state defense companies that contributed to his campaign either through their employees or lobbyists.
His colleague on the other side of the aisle, Republican Dan Burton, is asking for $2.5 million in defense spending for a local autism center named for his grandson.
Both requests are among the $148 million in projects Indiana's nine U.S. House members have inserted into federal spending bills. Called "earmarks," the projects must survive the process of reconciling the House and Senate versions of the spending legislation. They also must survive veto threats by President Bush, who says most of the bills cost too much.
Although recent influence-peddling scandals have focused more attention on funding for special projects, the fundamental nature of earmarks hasn't changed. They are distributed based more on clout -- including lawmakers' committee assignments, whether their party is in the majority and whether they face a competitive re-election bid -- than on comparative merit. And those in the best position to get earmarks are magnets for campaign contributions.
Visclosky, a 12-term House member who sits on the Appropriations Committee that writes the annual spending bills, requested $89.5 million -- 61 percent of the money Indiana delegation members inserted into the spending bills. His portion is about $22 million more than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., got included in the bills.
The state's four other Democrats didn't do as well as Visclosky did, but each got about $10 million worth of projects into the bills, putting them ahead of the state's four Republicans.
The largest Indiana earmark in the legislation -- $6.8 million for White River flood damage reduction in Indianapolis -- was inserted by Rep. Julia Carson, D-Indianapolis. Rep. Baron Hill, D-Seymour, was responsible for the smallest -- $11,000 for security cameras and door locks for the Sellersburg Police Department.
Among Republican delegation members, the projects requested by Rep. Mike Pence, who has criticized earmarks and is not facing a tough re-election, are worth the least -- $3.2 million.
The Senate is further behind in the budget process. But early versions of some Senate budget bills show Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., have won approval for $17.6 million in projects they've requested together and $2.8 million in projects they requested individually.
Visclosky's power surge
Visclosky, who heads an appropriations subcommittee that produces one of the 12 annual spending bills, has collected $728,493 in campaign contributions so far this year.
That's about twice what he raised in an equivalent period in 2005 when he didn't chair the subcommittee responsible for funding energy and water projects. Only 25 lawmakers in the House raised more through June, according to disclosure reports.
Visclosky's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Nearly two-thirds of the $19.5 million Visclosky earmarked for companies outside Indiana is destined for seven firms represented by PMA Group, a top defense lobbying shop whose roster includes many former congressional and Pentagon aides. A former top Visclosky aide, Richard Kaelin, is now a lobbyist at PMA Group.
Visclosky's campaign committee received $137,750 from PMA Group and its employees from 1989 through 2006, the largest amount the committee has received from a single source, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions.
The lobbying company, which declined to comment, has given another $40,000 to Visclosky's personal campaign and political action committees so far this year, according to disclosure reports. In addition, the 13 companies both inside and outside Indiana that are represented by the PMA Group and would receive earmarks requested by Visclosky gave at least $96,900 to Visclosky through June.
Applied Global Technologies, headquartered in Florida, got $2.5 million at Visclosky's request for video teletraining for the military. Executive Vice President Mike Garvey said the company sought Visclosky's help, even though the project doesn't have an Indiana connection.
"We go on the Hill with some folks that we use on Capitol Hill and we look for folks that like to support different types of military operations," Garvey said.
Garvey said he doesn't know whether campaign contributions from company officials make it easier to get earmarks.
"I'm not one of the people that actually contribute to his campaign," he said.
However, Visclosky's campaign disclosure report shows Garvey gave the maximum $2,300 contribution in April, and two other company officers did the same in May.
General Atomics, another out-of-state company that benefited from Visclosky's help -- and gave to his campaign -- said the special project money earmarked for the company would benefit Indiana.
Gary Hopper, vice president of the company's Washington operations, said some of the $1 million it would receive would go to Purdue University, which is helping develop a fuel cell soldiers could carry on their belts.
PMA Group's clients include companies that are part of a high-tech business incubator in northwest Indiana created by Purdue University with money Visclosky secured in previous years' spending bills.
Visclosky got $6.9 million for construction of the Purdue Technology Center of Northwest Indiana, which opened in 2005. Five of the seven initial companies were PMA clients whose headquarters were elsewhere but who opened operations in Northwest Indiana.
Visclosky has continued to look out for the five companies, getting at least $12 million for them in this year's defense spending bill.
One company, 21st Century Systems, which has offices in nine states, said it commonly works with universities like Purdue. A company official said its involvement in the center is not due to Visclosky.
Spokesman Larry Jackson said the small company needs help from Congress because, although it won competitive rounds of funding for its intelligent software security system, it's difficult to get funding for the final phase.
Jackson said the $19,500 company employees have contributed to Visclosky this year is common for companies that work with the government.
"It is the way the nation's system is set up," Jackson said. "It is kind of a cost of doing business in some ways."
Burton, who requested $7.6 million for earmarks, leads the delegation's Republicans in the dollar value of special projects in the spending bills. The largest chunk, $2.5 million, would go to the Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, a project included in the spending bill for the Defense Department.
"It's not that autism or cancer isn't laudable research," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's just unclear that it's something that the Defense Department should be spending its dollars on when men and women are in harm's way."
A high priority for Burton
Burton spokesman Clark Rehme responded: "Helping autistic children is one of Congressman Burton's highest priorities."
Burton also requested $200,000 for the center in the bill that funds health programs. Ellis said it's possible that Burton went after funding in both bills because the panel writing the defense bill was being more generous with earmarks.
Jon Mills, spokesman for Clarian Health Partners, the Indianapolis-based hospital system that includes the autism center, said the federal funding Burton has gotten for the center over the years has been crucial.
"Financially, it's very tough to treat these children," Mills said. "We just want to tip our hat to him and extend our gratitude."
Indiana's delegates take care of donors
9 House members have added $148M in pet projects into bills
By Maureen Groppe
Star Washington Bureau
August 20, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Democratic Congressman Pete Visclosky, who represents part of Northwest Indiana, has used his seat on the committee that appropriates federal dollars to steer $12.5 million to out-of-state defense companies that contributed to his campaign either through their employees or lobbyists.
His colleague on the other side of the aisle, Republican Dan Burton, is asking for $2.5 million in defense spending for a local autism center named for his grandson.
Both requests are among the $148 million in projects Indiana's nine U.S. House members have inserted into federal spending bills. Called "earmarks," the projects must survive the process of reconciling the House and Senate versions of the spending legislation. They also must survive veto threats by President Bush, who says most of the bills cost too much.
Although recent influence-peddling scandals have focused more attention on funding for special projects, the fundamental nature of earmarks hasn't changed. They are distributed based more on clout -- including lawmakers' committee assignments, whether their party is in the majority and whether they face a competitive re-election bid -- than on comparative merit. And those in the best position to get earmarks are magnets for campaign contributions.
Visclosky, a 12-term House member who sits on the Appropriations Committee that writes the annual spending bills, requested $89.5 million -- 61 percent of the money Indiana delegation members inserted into the spending bills. His portion is about $22 million more than Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., got included in the bills.
The state's four other Democrats didn't do as well as Visclosky did, but each got about $10 million worth of projects into the bills, putting them ahead of the state's four Republicans.
The largest Indiana earmark in the legislation -- $6.8 million for White River flood damage reduction in Indianapolis -- was inserted by Rep. Julia Carson, D-Indianapolis. Rep. Baron Hill, D-Seymour, was responsible for the smallest -- $11,000 for security cameras and door locks for the Sellersburg Police Department.
Among Republican delegation members, the projects requested by Rep. Mike Pence, who has criticized earmarks and is not facing a tough re-election, are worth the least -- $3.2 million.
The Senate is further behind in the budget process. But early versions of some Senate budget bills show Sens. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., have won approval for $17.6 million in projects they've requested together and $2.8 million in projects they requested individually.
Visclosky's power surge
Visclosky, who heads an appropriations subcommittee that produces one of the 12 annual spending bills, has collected $728,493 in campaign contributions so far this year.
That's about twice what he raised in an equivalent period in 2005 when he didn't chair the subcommittee responsible for funding energy and water projects. Only 25 lawmakers in the House raised more through June, according to disclosure reports.
Visclosky's office did not respond to requests for comment.
Nearly two-thirds of the $19.5 million Visclosky earmarked for companies outside Indiana is destined for seven firms represented by PMA Group, a top defense lobbying shop whose roster includes many former congressional and Pentagon aides. A former top Visclosky aide, Richard Kaelin, is now a lobbyist at PMA Group.
Visclosky's campaign committee received $137,750 from PMA Group and its employees from 1989 through 2006, the largest amount the committee has received from a single source, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions.
The lobbying company, which declined to comment, has given another $40,000 to Visclosky's personal campaign and political action committees so far this year, according to disclosure reports. In addition, the 13 companies both inside and outside Indiana that are represented by the PMA Group and would receive earmarks requested by Visclosky gave at least $96,900 to Visclosky through June.
Applied Global Technologies, headquartered in Florida, got $2.5 million at Visclosky's request for video teletraining for the military. Executive Vice President Mike Garvey said the company sought Visclosky's help, even though the project doesn't have an Indiana connection.
"We go on the Hill with some folks that we use on Capitol Hill and we look for folks that like to support different types of military operations," Garvey said.
Garvey said he doesn't know whether campaign contributions from company officials make it easier to get earmarks.
"I'm not one of the people that actually contribute to his campaign," he said.
However, Visclosky's campaign disclosure report shows Garvey gave the maximum $2,300 contribution in April, and two other company officers did the same in May.
General Atomics, another out-of-state company that benefited from Visclosky's help -- and gave to his campaign -- said the special project money earmarked for the company would benefit Indiana.
Gary Hopper, vice president of the company's Washington operations, said some of the $1 million it would receive would go to Purdue University, which is helping develop a fuel cell soldiers could carry on their belts.
PMA Group's clients include companies that are part of a high-tech business incubator in northwest Indiana created by Purdue University with money Visclosky secured in previous years' spending bills.
Visclosky got $6.9 million for construction of the Purdue Technology Center of Northwest Indiana, which opened in 2005. Five of the seven initial companies were PMA clients whose headquarters were elsewhere but who opened operations in Northwest Indiana.
Visclosky has continued to look out for the five companies, getting at least $12 million for them in this year's defense spending bill.
One company, 21st Century Systems, which has offices in nine states, said it commonly works with universities like Purdue. A company official said its involvement in the center is not due to Visclosky.
Spokesman Larry Jackson said the small company needs help from Congress because, although it won competitive rounds of funding for its intelligent software security system, it's difficult to get funding for the final phase.
Jackson said the $19,500 company employees have contributed to Visclosky this year is common for companies that work with the government.
"It is the way the nation's system is set up," Jackson said. "It is kind of a cost of doing business in some ways."
Burton, who requested $7.6 million for earmarks, leads the delegation's Republicans in the dollar value of special projects in the spending bills. The largest chunk, $2.5 million, would go to the Christian Sarkine Autism Treatment Center, a project included in the spending bill for the Defense Department.
"It's not that autism or cancer isn't laudable research," said Steve Ellis, vice president of the budget watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "It's just unclear that it's something that the Defense Department should be spending its dollars on when men and women are in harm's way."
A high priority for Burton
Burton spokesman Clark Rehme responded: "Helping autistic children is one of Congressman Burton's highest priorities."
Burton also requested $200,000 for the center in the bill that funds health programs. Ellis said it's possible that Burton went after funding in both bills because the panel writing the defense bill was being more generous with earmarks.
Jon Mills, spokesman for Clarian Health Partners, the Indianapolis-based hospital system that includes the autism center, said the federal funding Burton has gotten for the center over the years has been crucial.
"Financially, it's very tough to treat these children," Mills said. "We just want to tip our hat to him and extend our gratitude."
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned
WACO, Texas (AP) — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned, officials said Monday, ending a monthslong standoff with critics who questioned his honesty and competence at the helm of the Justice Department.
Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his resignation over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend until accepting his resignation Friday, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department planned a news conference for 10:30 a.m. EDT, in Washington. Bush planned to discuss Gonzales' departure at his Crawford, Texas, ranch shortly thereafter.
Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the announcement.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was among those mentioned as possible successors. However, a senior administration official said the matter had not been raised with Chertoff. Bush leaves Washington next Monday for Australia, and Gonzales' replacement might not be named by then, the official said.
"Better late than never," said Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, summing up the response of many in Washington to Gonzales' resignation.
Gonzales served more than two years as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.
Bush steadfastly — and at times angrily — refused to give in to critics, even from his own GOP, who argued that Gonzales should go. Earlier this month at a news conference, the president grew irritated when asked about accountability in his administration and turned the tables on the Democratic Congress.
"Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," Bush said testily.
Gonzales, 52, called Bush on Friday to inform him of his resignation, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to not pre-empt Gonzales' statement. The president had Gonzales come to lunch at his ranch on Sunday as a parting gesture.
Gonzales, whom Bush once considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, is the fourth top-ranking administration official to leave since November 2006. Donald H. Rumsfeld, an architect of the Iraq war, resigned as defense secretary one day after the November elections. Paul Wolfowitz agreed in May to step down as president of the World Bank after an ethics inquiry. And top Bush adviser Karl Rove earlier this month announced that he was stepping down.
Reacting to Monday's developments, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that Gonzales' department had "suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence."
Gonzales could not satisfy critics who said he had lost credibility over the Justice Department's handling of warrantless wiretaps related to the threat of terrorism and the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
As attorney general and earlier as White House counsel, Gonzales pushed for expanded presidential powers, including the eavesdropping authority. He drafted controversial rules for military war tribunals and sought to limit the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay — prompting lawsuits by civil libertarians who said the government was violating the Constitution in its pursuit of terrorists.
There were indications that the development came suddenly. Bush normally handles Cabinet resignations with efficiency, only allowing news of them to leak when a successor has been chosen and appearing with both the person departing and the replacement when the public announcement was made. That was not to be the case this time, the official said.
"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House," Reid warned.
The flap over the fired prosecutors proved to be the final straw for Gonzales, whose truthfulness in testimony to Congress was drawn into question.
Lawmakers said the dismissals of the federal prosecutors appeared to be politically motivated, and some of the fired U.S. attorneys said they felt pressured to investigate Democrats before elections. Gonzales maintained that the dismissals were based the prosecutors' lackluster performance records.
Thousands of documents released by the Justice Department show a White House plot, hatched shortly after the 2004 elections, to replace U.S. attorneys. At one point, senior White House officials, including Rove, suggested replacing all 93 prosecutors. In December 2006, eight were ordered to resign.
In several House and Senate hearings into the firings, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials failed to fully explain the ousters without contradicting each other.
During his congressional testimony, Gonzales answered "I don't know" and "I can't recall" scores of times and even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive. Bush, however, praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was "honest" and "honorable."
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be removed. But congressional Democrats said politics played an unusually critical role in the ouster of several prosecutors.
In 2004, Gonzales pressed to reauthorize a secret domestic spying program over the Justice Department's protests. Gonzales was White House counsel at the time and during a dramatic hospital confrontation he and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card sought approval from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in intensive care. Ashcroft refused.
The White House subsequently reauthorized the program without the department's approval. Later, Bush ordered changes to the program to help the department defend its legality. The domestic surveillance program was later declared unconstitutional by a federal judge and since has been changed to require court approval before surveillance can be conducted.
Similarly, Gonzales found himself on the defensive in early March for FBI's improper and, in some cases, illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes. On March 9, the Justice Department's inspector general released an audit showing that FBI agents, over a three-year period, demanded telephone and Internet companies to hand over their customers' personal information without official authorization.
The damning audit also found that the FBI had improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances, and concluded that it underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.
Gonzales declared himself upset and frustrated over the findings. But lawmakers said they had begun to lose confidence in him.
Republicans and Democrats alike had demanded his resignation over the botched handling of FBI terror investigations and the firings of U.S. attorneys, but President Bush had defiantly stood by his Texas friend until accepting his resignation Friday, according to senior administration officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The Justice Department planned a news conference for 10:30 a.m. EDT, in Washington. Bush planned to discuss Gonzales' departure at his Crawford, Texas, ranch shortly thereafter.
Solicitor General Paul Clement will be acting attorney general until a replacement is found, said the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid pre-empting the announcement.
Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff was among those mentioned as possible successors. However, a senior administration official said the matter had not been raised with Chertoff. Bush leaves Washington next Monday for Australia, and Gonzales' replacement might not be named by then, the official said.
"Better late than never," said Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, summing up the response of many in Washington to Gonzales' resignation.
Gonzales served more than two years as the nation's first Hispanic attorney general.
Bush steadfastly — and at times angrily — refused to give in to critics, even from his own GOP, who argued that Gonzales should go. Earlier this month at a news conference, the president grew irritated when asked about accountability in his administration and turned the tables on the Democratic Congress.
"Implicit in your questions is that Al Gonzales did something wrong. I haven't seen Congress say he's done anything wrong," Bush said testily.
Gonzales, 52, called Bush on Friday to inform him of his resignation, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to not pre-empt Gonzales' statement. The president had Gonzales come to lunch at his ranch on Sunday as a parting gesture.
Gonzales, whom Bush once considered for appointment to the Supreme Court, is the fourth top-ranking administration official to leave since November 2006. Donald H. Rumsfeld, an architect of the Iraq war, resigned as defense secretary one day after the November elections. Paul Wolfowitz agreed in May to step down as president of the World Bank after an ethics inquiry. And top Bush adviser Karl Rove earlier this month announced that he was stepping down.
Reacting to Monday's developments, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said that Gonzales' department had "suffered a severe crisis of leadership that allowed our justice system to be corrupted by political influence."
Gonzales could not satisfy critics who said he had lost credibility over the Justice Department's handling of warrantless wiretaps related to the threat of terrorism and the firings of several U.S. attorneys.
As attorney general and earlier as White House counsel, Gonzales pushed for expanded presidential powers, including the eavesdropping authority. He drafted controversial rules for military war tribunals and sought to limit the legal rights of detainees at Guantanamo Bay — prompting lawsuits by civil libertarians who said the government was violating the Constitution in its pursuit of terrorists.
There were indications that the development came suddenly. Bush normally handles Cabinet resignations with efficiency, only allowing news of them to leak when a successor has been chosen and appearing with both the person departing and the replacement when the public announcement was made. That was not to be the case this time, the official said.
"Alberto Gonzales was never the right man for this job. He lacked independence, he lacked judgment, and he lacked the spine to say no to Karl Rove," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
"This resignation is not the end of the story. Congress must get to the bottom of this mess and follow the facts where they lead, into the White House," Reid warned.
The flap over the fired prosecutors proved to be the final straw for Gonzales, whose truthfulness in testimony to Congress was drawn into question.
Lawmakers said the dismissals of the federal prosecutors appeared to be politically motivated, and some of the fired U.S. attorneys said they felt pressured to investigate Democrats before elections. Gonzales maintained that the dismissals were based the prosecutors' lackluster performance records.
Thousands of documents released by the Justice Department show a White House plot, hatched shortly after the 2004 elections, to replace U.S. attorneys. At one point, senior White House officials, including Rove, suggested replacing all 93 prosecutors. In December 2006, eight were ordered to resign.
In several House and Senate hearings into the firings, Gonzales and other Justice Department officials failed to fully explain the ousters without contradicting each other.
During his congressional testimony, Gonzales answered "I don't know" and "I can't recall" scores of times and even some Republicans said his testimony was evasive. Bush, however, praised Gonzales' performance and said the attorney general was "honest" and "honorable."
U.S. attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, and can be removed. But congressional Democrats said politics played an unusually critical role in the ouster of several prosecutors.
In 2004, Gonzales pressed to reauthorize a secret domestic spying program over the Justice Department's protests. Gonzales was White House counsel at the time and during a dramatic hospital confrontation he and then-White House chief of staff Andrew Card sought approval from then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, who was in intensive care. Ashcroft refused.
The White House subsequently reauthorized the program without the department's approval. Later, Bush ordered changes to the program to help the department defend its legality. The domestic surveillance program was later declared unconstitutional by a federal judge and since has been changed to require court approval before surveillance can be conducted.
Similarly, Gonzales found himself on the defensive in early March for FBI's improper and, in some cases, illegal prying into Americans' personal information during terror and spy probes. On March 9, the Justice Department's inspector general released an audit showing that FBI agents, over a three-year period, demanded telephone and Internet companies to hand over their customers' personal information without official authorization.
The damning audit also found that the FBI had improperly obtained telephone records in non-emergency circumstances, and concluded that it underreported to Congress how often it used national security letters to ask businesses to turn over customer data. The letters are administrative subpoenas that do not require a judge's approval.
Gonzales declared himself upset and frustrated over the findings. But lawmakers said they had begun to lose confidence in him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)