Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page
Return to CUSA Report Table of Contents

Appendix C:
OIG's Written Questions to Vice President Albert Gore



August 26, 1999

Mr. Steven F. Reich
Senior Associate Counsel to the President
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. Reich:

This is in response to your letter dated July 13, 1999, which followed our conversations regarding the Office of the Inspector General's request to interview Vice President Gore about his knowledge of the Immigration and Naturalization Service's Citizenship USA program. On June 25, 1999, you informed me that the Vice President would not agree to an interview, but would answer written questions.

By telephone conversation of July 6, 1999, I told you that the Inspector General did not agree that submitting written questions was a suitable alternative to an in-person interview, that our experience with such a process was unsatisfactory, and that I was renewing our request for an interview. I asked you to clarify whether the Vice President was refusing to participate in an interview or merely suggesting an alternative arrangement. I also informed you that while we would submit written questions rather than obtaining no information at all from the Vice President, that we would likely comment upon the Vice President's refusal to participate in an interview in our final report. Your July 13 letter repeated your previous position that the Vice President would answer written questions. I understand your response to mean that the Vice President declines to participate in an interview at this time.

We appreciate that the Vice President has a very busy schedule. However, we believe that an interview would, in the end, be a more efficient method of proceeding as opposed to submitting written questions that will likely require one or more sets of follow-up questions. Nonetheless, given the Vice President's decision not to participate in an interview, I enclose a series of written questions and attachments upon which several of these questions are based. We would appreciate a response within 30 days from the date of this letter. Upon completing his answers to the questions, please have the Vice President sign and date the enclosed declaration.

I plan to take an extended leave from the Inspector General's Office beginning the end of this week. If you have questions about this request, please contact Paul Martin, Special Counsel to the Inspector General, at (202) 514-3435. Thank you.

Sincerely,



Suzanne Drouet
Counselor to the Inspector General

Enclosures




Declaration



I, ALBERT GORE, JR., hereby solemnly affirm that the answers I have provided are true and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.



______________________________________
signature



______________________________________
date


QUESTIONS FOR THE VICE PRESIDENT

An electronic copy of these questions (saved in Word97) is enclosed for your convenience. Please provide your response under each question. In answering the following questions, the word "discussions" includes communication by e-mail, by telephone, or in person with another individual.

  1. When did you first become aware of the Citizenship USA (CUSA) program or efforts by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) to reduce the naturalization backlog in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996?

  2. How did you first become aware of the CUSA program or efforts by the INS to reduce the naturalization backlog in FY 1996?

  3. During FY 1996, did you have discussions with any INS or Department of Justice official about the CUSA program or efforts by the INS to reduce the naturalization backlog? If so, please

Attachment A

We understand that, in preparation for a meeting with the Hispanic Caucus in January 1996, a briefing paper was prepared for Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes by Steven Warnath of the Domestic Policy Council. We have enclosed a copy of that document, which is identified as Attachment A.

  1. Have you seen this document before?

  2. When did you first see it?

  3. Who provided it to you and for what purpose?

At the bottom of the first page of Attachment A, the memorandum states that "[t]he Caucus' view is that faster naturalization means more potential Democratic voters in the next election … Congressman Bercerra [sic] is likely to express the concern that the Administration's Citizenship U.S.A. program is unlikely to maximize this potential."

  1. Did you attend the meeting with the Hispanic Caucus?

  2. If so, did you discuss with anyone at the meeting the possibility that the acceleration of the INS' naturalization efforts might result in increasing the number of people who would be eligible to vote in the November 1996 election?

  3. Did you have any discussions with the President or members of the White House staff about the CUSA program or efforts by the INS to reduce the naturalization backlog in FY 1996 prior to the meeting with the Hispanic Caucus? If so, please tell us in detail about those conversations, identifying all parties to the discussion(s).

Effect of Accelerated Naturalization

  1. During FY 1996, did you discuss with anyone the possibility that the acceleration of the INS' naturalization efforts might result in increasing the number of people who would be eligible to vote in the November 1996 election? If so,

  2. During FY 1996, did you discuss with anyone the possibility that the acceleration of the INS' naturalization efforts might result in increasing the number of people who would be eligible to vote in the November 1996 election AND who might likely vote for the Clinton-Gore ticket and/or other Democratic candidates? If so,

  3. Did any of these discussions specifically focus on effects in the State of California? If so,

  4. Did you tell Ms. Kamarck or anyone else that the President's interest in the CUSA program was generated by an interest to naturalize large numbers of potential Democratic voters? If so, please describe any such discussions in detail.

  5. During FY 1996, did you participate in any discussions about the impact of accelerated processing on the quality of INS adjudications? For example, did the participants discuss the possibility that accelerated processing might result in naturalizing ineligible persons? If so,

February 9, 1996 Meeting

Evidence shows that INS Commissioner Doris Meissner attended a meeting at the White House in Harold Ickes' office on February 9, 1996. Elaine Kamarck of your staff was present for that meeting.

  1. Who made the decision that Ms. Kamarck should attend that meeting?

  2. For what purpose was she at the meeting?

  3. What discussions did you have with Ms. Kamarck regarding CUSA, naturalization, or voter eligibility prior to her attending the meeting?

  4. Did you provide Ms. Kamarck with any instructions prior to the meeting in Mr. Ickes' office? If so, please describe these instructions in detail.

National Performance Review (NPR)

Evidence shows that the NPR became involved in naturalization processing in February 1996.

  1. Why did the NPR become involved in naturalization processing in February 1996? Please state ALL factors that contributed to the decision to involve NPR.

  2. Who made the final decision to involve the NPR?

  3. Did you have discussions with anyone prior to the February 9, 1996 meeting in Mr. Ickes' office about the involvement of the NPR in the CUSA program? If so, please identify the persons with whom you had such discussions and describe those discussions in detail.

  4. Did you tell Ms. Kamarck or anyone else that the President sought the assistance of NPR to speed up the CUSA program? If so, please describe any such discussions in detail.

  5. To your knowledge, why did NPR end its active involvement in the CUSA program in early May 1996?

  6. Who made the decision to end NPR involvement in the CUSA program?

  7. Did you participate in discussions about whether the NPR should end its involvement in the CUSA program?

Attachment B

On February 14, 1996, Father Miquel Vega of the Active Citizenship Campaign sent you a letter that stated that INS' failure to reduce the naturalization backlog "threatens to deny 300,000 Latinos the right to vote in the 1996 Presidential election." The letter further says that "failure to deliver on promises made by the INS could create the impression that the Clinton administration is Anti-Latino." Both of these quoted excerpts are underscored in the letter, and a copy of that letter with attachments is included as Attachment B.

Evidence show that on March 8, 1996, you, Ms. Kamarck, and NPR staffer Doug Farbrother met with INS officials in Los Angeles. Following that meeting, you met with Father Vega and a number of Los Angeles community leaders.

  1. What was the purpose of the meeting with Father Vega?

  2. Did you participate in discussions at these meetings (with INS or with the Los Angeles community group) that accelerated naturalization could benefit the Clinton-Gore campaign and/or the Democratic party in the 1996 election? If so, please identify the persons with whom you had such discussions and describe those discussions in detail.

Attachment C

In mid-March 1996, Mr. Farbrother proposed that INS delegate broad authority to field managers to speed up the hiring of temporary employees and accelerate the progress of CUSA. We have enclosed a copy of the delegation letter, as well as e-mail correspondence between Mr. Farbrother and Ms. Kamarck on this issue in Attachment C. The broad delegation proposed by Mr. Farbrother was not implemented by INS. Ms. Kamarck's email of March 21, 1996, says, "[T]he President is sick of this and wants action."

  1. Did this accurately portray the President's intent on this issue?

  2. Did you have conversations with President Clinton about naturalization processing during March 1996 ? If so, please describe those conversations in detail.

  3. Did you have any conversations with Ms. Kamarck in March 1996 as a result of conversations with the President about naturalization? If so, please describe any such conversation in detail.

  4. If not, describe to the best of your knowledge how Ms. Kamarck was aware of the President's intent on this issue.

In the delegation letter, addressed to INS Deputy Commissioner Chris Sale, Mr. Farbrother said, "to get the results the Vice-President wants, I need to get plenty of authority into the hands of your District Directors in the big cities."

  1. Did Mr. Farbrother and other NPR staffers have authority to speak for you on this issue?

  2. What results were you seeking?

Attachment D

Enclosed as Attachment D is an email dated March 28, 1996, from Doug Farbrother, addressed to you, Ms. Kamarck, and Bob Stone and Lori Lyons of NPR. In this email, Mr. Farbrother wrote that INS had not made him "confident they could produce a million new citizens before election day." The email goes on to describe Mr. Farbrother's broad delegation proposals, and ends with the statement that "unless we blast INS headquarters loose from their grip on frontline managers, we are going to have way too many people still waiting for citizenship in November. I can't make Doris Meissner delegate broad authority to her field managers. Can you?"

According to the document we have, your response to Mr. Farbrother's March 28 email was "[w]e'll explore it. Thanks."

  1. What did you do in regards to this email other than respond as referenced above?

  2. Did NPR get involved in naturalization processing in part to assist INS in producing one million new citizens before the November, 1996 election? If this was a part of the NPR mission, please explain.

Attachment E

The following day, March 29, 1996, Mr. Farbrother sent an email to Ms. Kamarck and Mr. Stone beginning with the phrase "[T]o blunt any charge that we are running a citizenship\Clinton voter mill, I am working with the FBI…" (Attachment E) The email goes on to discuss INS' "ridiculously loose fingerprint check system" and suggests that Mr. Farbrother should replace Ms. Chris Sale as INS Deputy Commissioner.

  1. When did you become aware of Mr. Farbrother's suggestions regarding the fingerprint system? Regarding replacing Chris Sale?

  2. What was your response to Mr. Farbrother's suggestion that he replace Ms. Sale?

  3. What was your response to his comment about INS' "ridiculously loose fingerprint check system"?

  4. Did anyone discuss with you the possibility that CUSA was or could be perceived as a "citizenship\Clinton voter mill"? If so, please describe the conversation in detail.

Attachment F

Enclosed as Attachment F is a copy of a "lunch memo" that was authored by Elaine Kamarck, dated April 4, 1996. We understand that the memo was written for your information prior to a weekly lunch meeting with President Clinton. The memo discusses INS and the naturalization backlog. On Page Two of the document, the memo says that "[o]nly by working 7 days a week and longer hours can we hope to make a significant enough dent in the backlog that it will show up when it matters."

  1. Did the phrase "when it matters" refer in any way to the November 1996 election? If so, please explain.

  2. What was your understanding of the phrase "when it matters"? Please explain.

  3. Did you discuss the issue of naturalization processing with Ms. Kamarck before this lunch meeting with President Clinton in early April, 1996? If so, was the impact of accelerated naturalization processing on the 1996 election discussed? Please describe any such conversation in detail.

Letters from Community Based Organizations - Attachments G and H

Enclosed are copies of two letters sent by Mr. Dan Solis (of the Chicago, Illinois community based organization United Neighborhood Organization) to the President, Mr. Ickes, and the First Lady in 1994 and 1995. (Attachment G)

  1. When did you first become aware of these letters?

  2. Did these letters from Mr. Solis generate any discussions (at or around the time of their receipt by the White House) about naturalization? Did any such discussions involve the topic of the political benefits to the Clinton\Gore campaign and/or the Democratic party of accelerated naturalization? If so, please identify the approximate date of the discussions, the persons involved in the discussions, and describe the substance of the discussions in detail.

On April 24, 1996, Father Vega sent Ms. Kamarck a letter (Attachment H) thanking NPR for its assistance with the CUSA program. The letter mentions that INS progress on the backlog could mean "as many as 229,000 new citizens voting in Los Angeles this November" and that "[n]ationally, some 800,000 will become new citizens in time for the election." The documents that we have indicate that Ms. Kamarck forwarded this letter to you.

  1. When did you first see this letter?

  2. As a result of the comments from Father Vega or other community leaders, did you participate in discussions concerning the impact that accelerated naturalization would have on the November 1996 election? If so, please identify the persons with whom you had such discussions and describe those discussions in detail.

Attachment I

In April 1996, Mr. Farbrother prepared several "options" memos dealing with naturalization processing. These are attached collectively as Attachment I.

  1. When did you first see any of these memos?

  2. What did you do in response to them?

  3. Did you discuss these option memos with President Clinton? If yes,